Archive for May, 2013

CHINA SET TO STAGE TECHNOLOGICAL WARFARE EXERCISES

May 31, 2013

The Washington Times on May 29, 2013, reported that China next month will stage military exercises using computer-equipped units that combine traditional firepower and electronic warfare capabilities.

The upcoming drills will demonstrate the strides Beijing has made in adopting U.S.-style technological warfare, stoking concerns among the U.S. and its allies about China’s cyber capabilities.

The exercises will be held in late June at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Zhurihe training base in north China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Beijing’s largest military training facility, China’s official Xinhua News Agency reported.

They will involve “digitalized units, special operations forces, army aviation and electronic counter forces,” Xinhua said.

Cybersecurity “is an issue that we raise at every level in our meetings with our Chinese counterparts and I’m sure will be a topic of discussion when the president meets with President Xi,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Larry M. Wortzel, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said the capabilities demonstrated by the U.S. military in the 1990s had spurred the Chinese to try to catch up.

“The big shock to them was when they saw what we could do in the Balkans and the [first] Gulf [War],” Mr. Wortzel said, adding that the PLA had been working ever since to emulate the technological capabilities of the U.S. military.

“The principal objective of the Chinese military today is to successfully integrate information technology into every aspect of their operations,” he said. “This is not just about cyber [attacks on enemy forces]. It is about the way you can process and share information on the battlefield.”

Richard D. Fisher, a China scholar at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the very nature of next month’s exercises — involving air and ground forces units from two different army groups — shows how far the Chinese have come.


Scholars say the military’s modernization and the development of Chinese high-tech industries have enabled online spying and the theft of military and industrial secrets.

Mr. Wortzel said the Chinese bought some technology from Europe in their drive to duplicate U.S. success is using data links on the batttlefield, and that much of the U.S. military’s training manuals and doctrine is public. “The rest they stole,” he said.

Although the Chinese rarely invite foreign observers to exercises like next month’s, they do release information about them, and U.S. intelligence agencies would be watching closely, Mr. Wortzel said.

Advertisements

VATICAN: SOME 100,000 CHRISTIANS KILLED PER YEAR OVER FAITH

May 30, 2013

Fox News on May 29, 2013, reported that a staggering 100,000 Christians are killed annually because of their faith, according to the Vatican — and several human rights groups claim such anti-Christian violence is on the rise in countries like Pakistan, Nigeria and Egypt.

“Credible research has reached the shocking conclusion that an estimate of more than 100,000 Christians are violently killed because of some relation to their faith every year,” Vatican spokesman Monsieur Silvano Maria Tomassi said Tuesday in a radio address to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

“Other Christians and other believers are subjected to forced displacement, to the destruction of their places of worship, to rape and to the abduction of their leaders, as it recently happened in the case of Bishops Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulos Yaziji, in Aleppo [Syria],” Tomassi said.

“Two-hundred million Christians currently live under persecution. It’s absolutely on the rise,” Jeff King, the group’s president, told FoxNews.com.

“It’s easing in the old Communist world and it’s rising in the Islamic world,” King said, noting in particular countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria. King said that the first major killing spree in recent years happened between 1998 and 2003, when he claims 10,000 Christians were murdered in Indonesia alone during those years.

Last March, a Nigerian Christian leader was killed when suspected Muslim militants burst into his home and shot him. Two members of Islamic militant group Boko Haram shot Faye Pama Mysa, a Pentecostal pastor and secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria, in his home Wednesday, according to multiple reports. The killing happened just after President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency because of ongoing attacks in Africa’s most populous nation.

John Eibner, CEO of Christian Solidarity International, has raised grave concerns over what he calls “religious cleansing” in Syria.

“Religious minorities are under constant threat in Syria,” Eibner told FoxNews.com. “If things continue as they have been for the past two years in Syria, with an increase in religious cleansing, it’s reasonable to think that there will be no more Christian communities or other religious minorities in the near future.”

“Anti-Christian violence is on the increase throughout the world, especially throughout North Africa and the Middle East,” he added. “It’s hard for me to say with precision what the numbers are, but without doubt anti-Christian violence is on the increase.”

Jane Zimmerman, the U.S. State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, said in a statement that: “While I’m unfamiliar with the methodology that was used to reach that number, we have certainly followed numerous cases in recent years in which Christians and others of many faiths have been attacked or killed on account of their religious beliefs.”

“Whatever the numbers, no one should die for professing or practicing their faith, whatever that faith is,” Zimmerman told FoxNews.com. “The United States firmly supports the freedom to profess and practice one’s faith, to believe or not to believe, and to change one’s beliefs. As Secretary Kerry said on May 20, religious freedom ‘is a birthright of every human being.'”

INVISIBLE ARMIES BY MAX BOOT

May 29, 2013

INVISIBLE ARMIES: AN EPIC HISTORY OF GUERRILLA WARFARE FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT
By Max Boot Liveright, $35, 784 pages

The Washington Times on May 27, 2013, published a review by Joshua Sinai on a new book on guerrilla warfare. In “Invisible Armies,” Max Boot attempts to write an up-to-date account of the evolution of guerrilla warfare and terrorism from ancient times to the modern era. Mr. Boot, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and an adviser on counterinsurgency to the U.S. government, is ideally suited to produce such a comprehensive study. The book is well written, insightful and sweeping in its historical comprehensiveness, but it is not without some flaws. Excerpts below:

While one may quibble that the book’s title should include “terrorist” alongside “guerrilla,” since terrorist warfare is featured extensively in the selection of case studies, and that the author’s definition of terrorism should cover attacks by such groups against noncombatant civilians as well as armed military, the narrative does a thorough job explaining how asymmetric warfare — attacks by weaker forces against their stronger state militaries — is prosecuted. Thus, while guerrilla forces may number in the thousands, most terrorist groups have dozens to a few hundred fighters; and while guerrilla forces aim to capture, hold territory and even physically defeat their more powerful military adversaries, terrorists do not, and, in fact, “hope with a few spectacular attacks to trigger a revolution” within their societies — which is what al Qaeda had hoped would proceed from their catastrophic attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Both guerrilla warfare and terrorism, Mr. Boot writes, are important to understand because “Since World War II, insurgency and terrorism have become the dominant forms of conflict — a trend likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

Thus, to gain the ability to counter the threats posed by what Mr. Boot terms “invisible armies,” it is essential to understand the history and evolution of such warfare, a task well accommodated here.

After an historical overview the author explains how the modern era in terrorist warfare began with the 19th-century Russian anarchists, who promoted the notion of “propaganda by the deed,” which was followed by the Irish Republican Army’s predecessors in 1919 to 1921.

Mr. Boot points out that one of the most significant innovations in guerrilla warfare was developed by Mao Zedong, who understood that for “hit-and-run raids by lightly armed fighters” to defeat a more powerful military they had to be combined during the later stages of their insurgency with “regular warfare,” which they could attain by growing their military strength and popular support over time. Such strategy enabled not only the Chinese Communist insurgents to take power, but other guerrilla forces, including Hezbollah, which now constitutes an effective military army (with stockpiles of sophisticated rockets) and a “state-within-a-state” in Lebanon.

Of particular interest is Mr. Boot’s observation, “Unlike guerrilla warfare, the most ancient form of warfare, terrorism is strikingly modern.” This has been made possible by the development of four phenomena: destructive and portable weaponry, such as dynamite and pistols; the mass media, which publicizes their attacks; literacy, which enables terrorist groups to recruit educated operatives; and secular ideologies that focus on nationalistic and socioeconomic issues. Interestingly, in the current period, Mr. Boot writes, religious ideologies have replaced secular ones for many terrorist groups, such as the Palestinian Hamas and al Qaeda.

Mr. Boot concludes that while it is difficult for a conventional army to defeat a strongly motivated and well-organized guerrilla adversary, “the odds remain stacked against those who adopt guerrilla or terrorist tactics. For guerrillas to triumph, they usually require outside assistance, along with a major lack of acumen or will on the part of the government under siege.”

Writing such a sweeping and comprehensive account of the world’s major guerrilla and terrorist insurgencies from ancient times until the current period is difficult under any circumstances, but one wishes the author had provided fuller accounts of the Palestinian insurgencies against Israel and of Israel’s countermeasures. For example, there is no discussion of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Nevertheless, Mr. Boot’s “Invisible Armies” is a valuable account of some of the challenges modern militaries face in confronting terrorist and guerrilla insurgencies.

Joshua Sinai is the author of “Active Shooter: A Handbook on Prevention,” ASIS International (2013)

EUROPEAN UNION TO LIFT ARMS EMBARGO ON SYRIAN OPPOSITION

May 28, 2013

Fox News on May 28, 2013, published an AP report on The European Union saying its member states within days will be able to send weapons to help Syria’s outgunned rebels, seeking to pressure President Bashar Assad’s regime ahead of planned peace talks mediated by the United States and Russia. Excerpts below:

Though no EU country has any such plans now to send arms, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the decision “sends a very strong message from Europe to the Assad regime.” He spoke after an all-day meeting of foreign ministers Monday that laid bare EU hesitation on feeding arms in a foreign conflict only months after the 27-member bloc won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But in a bid to force Syria to participate in good faith at the prospective “Geneva II” talks next month, the meeting in Brussels dangled the option of sending in weapons and military equipment soon, when the current sanctions regime ends.

The prospect of EU weapons for the rebels, while maintaining stiff economic sanctions against Assad’s regime, also sends a message to Russia. Moscow has unabashedly sent weapons to Assad’s regime — and EU arms deliveries could partially re-balance the civil war when it comes to firepower.

Several EU ministers said arming the opposition would create a more level playing field that could force Assad into a negotiated settlement.

Britain and France — the EU’s biggest military powers — had been pushing the bloc to lift its embargo on delivery of weapons into Syria to help the embattled opposition.

EU countries will individually examine their export license applications one by one and will not proceed “at this stage” with deliveries of military equipment, the joint declaration said, though it did not specify when that might change.

EU ministers agreed to revisit the issue before Aug. 1, but countries, based on previous EU guidelines, can now decide for themselves whether they want to arm the rebels.

The EU nations also agreed everything possible should be done to control any exports and make sure they do not fall into the hands of extremists or terrorists — one of the thorniest issues for France and Britain in their calls to arm the rebels.

Each country will require “adequate safeguards against misuse of authorizations (for export) granted,” the EU text said.

Hague said Britain would only send in weapons “in company with other nations, in carefully controlled circumstances, and in compliance with international law.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius left the talks earlier Monday to return to Paris to meet with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who are leading the effort to bring the two warring Syrian sides to the negotiating table.

US Senator McCain meanwhile met with anti-government fighters in Syria. The fierce critic of Obama administration policy in Syria has stopped short of backing U.S. ground troops there.

France added urgency to the EU arms debate, with Fabius pointing to increasing signs that chemical weapons were being used in the conflict.

The EU nations have been steadfast opponents of Assad in the war and have steadily increased restrictive measures against his regime, including visa restrictions and economic sanctions. All those measures had been set to expire on May 31, but nearly all of the sanctions, including restrictions on exports and imports, visas, and funding for some Syrian companies, were extended for a year.

READING HAYEK IN BEIJING – CHRONICLER INSPIRED BY “THE ROAD TO SERFDOM”

May 27, 2013

Wall Street Journal on May 25, 2013, published an article by Bret Stephens on Yang Jisheng, a Chinese author receiving Manhattan Institute’s Hayek Prize for his book Tombstone In the spring of 1959, Yang Jisheng, then an 18-year-old scholarship student at a boarding school in China’s Hubei Province, got an unexpected visit from a childhood friend. “Your father is starving to death!” the friend told him. “Hurry back, and take some rice if you can.”

Mr. Yang’s father would die within three days. Yet it would take years before Mr. Yang learned that what happened to his father was not an isolated incident. He was one of the 36 million Chinese who succumbed to famine between 1958 and 1962.

There were no major droughts or floods in China in the famine years. Rather, the cause was man, and one man in particular: Mao Zedong, the Great Helmsman, whose visage still stares down on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square from atop the gates of the Forbidden City.

Mr. Yang went on to make his career, first as a journalist and senior editor with the Xinhua News Agency, then as a historian whose unflinching scholarship has brought him into increasing conflict with the Communist Party—of which he nonetheless remains a member. Now 72 and a resident of Beijing, he’s in New York this month to receive the Manhattan Institute’s Hayek Prize for Tombstone, his painstakingly researched, definitive history of the famine. On a visit to the Journal’s headquarters, his affinity for the prize’s namesake becomes clear.

“This book had a huge impact on me,” he says, holding up his dog-eared Chinese translation of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s book, he explains, was originally translated into Chinese in 1962 as “an ‘internal reference’ for top leaders,” meaning it was forbidden fruit to everyone else. Only in 1997 was a redacted translation made publicly available, complete with an editor’s preface denouncing Hayek as “not in line with the facts,” and “conceptually mixed up.”

Mr. Yang quickly saw that in Hayek’s warnings about the dangers of economic centralization lay both the ultimate explanation for the tragedies of his youth—and the predicaments of China’s present. “In a country where the sole employer is the state,” Hayek had observed, “opposition means death by slow starvation.”

So it was in 1958 as Mao initiated his Great Leap Forward, demanding huge increases in grain and steel production. Peasants were forced to work intolerable hours to meet impossible grain quotas, often employing disastrous agricultural methods inspired by the quack Soviet agronomist Trofim Lysenko. The grain that was produced was shipped to the cities, and even exported abroad, with no allowances made to feed the peasants adequately. Starving peasants were prevented from fleeing their districts to find food. Cannibalism, including parents eating their own children, became commonplace.

“Mao’s powers expanded from the people’s minds to their stomachs,” Mr. Yang says. “Whatever the Chinese people’s brains were thinking and what their stomachs were receiving were all under the control of Mao. . . . His powers extended to every inch of the field, and every factory, every workroom of a factory, every family in China.”

To this day, few people realize that Mao’s forced famine was the single greatest atrocity of the 20th century, exceeding by orders of magnitude the Rwandan genocide, the Cambodian Killing Fields and the Holocaust.

The power of Mr. Yang’s book lies in its hauntingly precise descriptions of the cruelty of party officials, the suffering of the peasants, the pervasive dread of being called “a right deviationist” for telling the truth that quotas weren’t being met and that millions were being starved to death, and the toadyism of Mao lieutenants.

Yet the book is more than a history of a uniquely cruel regime at a receding moment in time. It is also a warning of what lies at the end of the road for nations that substitute individualism with any form of collectivism, no matter what the motives.

“China’s economy is not what [Party leaders] claim as the ‘socialist-market economy,’ ” he says. “It’s a ‘power-market’ economy.”

“It means the market is controlled by the power. . . . For example, the land: Any permit to enter any sector, to do any business has to be approved by the government. Even local government, down to the county level. So every county operates like an enterprise, a company. The party secretary of the county is the CEO, the president.”

Put another way, the conventional notion that the modern Chinese system combines political authoritarianism with economic liberalism is mistaken: A more accurate description of the recipe is dictatorship and cronyism, with the results showing up in rampant corruption, environmental degradation and wide inequalities between the politically well-connected and everyone else. “There are two major forms of hatred” in China today, Mr. Yang explains. “Hatred toward the rich; hatred toward the powerful, the officials.” As often as not they are one and the same.

There is, of course, a rational reason why the regime tolerates Mr. Yang. To survive, the regime needs to censor vast amounts of information—what Mr. Yang calls “the ruling technique” of Chinese leaders across the centuries. Yet censorship isn’t enough: It also needs a certain number of people who understand the full truth about the Maoist system so that the party will never repeat its mistakes..

But there’s a more sinister reason why Mr. Yang is tolerated. Put simply, the regime needs some people to have a degree of intellectual freedom, in order to more perfectly maintain its dictatorship over everyone else.

As Hayek wrote in his famous essay on “The Use of Knowledge in a Society,” the fundamental problem of any planned system is that “knowledge of circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”

The Great Leap Forward was an extreme example of what happens when a coercive state, operating on the conceit of perfect knowledge, attempts to achieve some end.

“For the last 20 years, the Chinese government has been saying they have to change the growth mode of the economy,” Mr. Yang notes. “So they’ve been saying, rather than just merely expanding the economy they should do internal changes, meaning more value-added services and high tech. They’ve been shouting such slogans for 20 years, and not many results. Why haven’t we seen many changes? Because it’s the problem that lies in the very system, because it’s a power-market economy.

. . . If the politics isn’t changed, the growth mode cannot be changed.”

That suggests China will never become a mature power until it becomes a democratic one.

Still, Mr. Yang hardly seems to have given up hope that he can play a role in raising his country’s prospects. In particular, he’s keen to reclaim two ideas at risk of being lost in today’s China.

The first is the meaning of rights. A saying attributed to the philosopher Lao Tzu, he says, has it that a ruler should fill the people’s stomachs and empty their heads. The gambit of China’s current rulers is that they can stay in power forever by applying that maxim. Mr. Yang hopes they’re wrong.

The second is the obligation of memory. China today is a country galloping into a century many people believe it will define, one way or the other. Yet the past, Mr. Yang insists, also has its claims.

“If a people cannot face their history, these people won’t have a future. That was one of the purposes for me to write this book. I wrote a lot of hard facts, tragedies. I wanted people to learn a lesson, so we can be far away from the darkness, far away from tragedies, and won’t repeat them.”

Hayek would have understood both points well.

UK POLICE ARREST THREE MORE IN TERROR PROBE AFTER KILLING OF SOLDIER

May 26, 2013

Fox News on May 25, 2013, published an AP report on British police arresting three more suspects in connection with the savage killing of an off-duty soldier that has raised fresh concerns about terrorism.

Scotland Yard said counter-terrorism officers arrested two men, aged 24 and 28, at a residential address in southeast London. A third man, 21, was arrested separately on a London street at the same time.

Police said they used a stun gun on two of the suspects. All three were detained on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder.

Officers have already detained several others in connection with the murder of 25-year-old soldier Lee Rigby, who was hit with a vehicle then repeatedly stabbed with knives while walking outside the Royal Artillery Barracks in the Woolwich, south London, on Wednesday afternoon.

Three other people were arrested Thursday in connection with the probe. Two women were released without charge, and a 29-year-old man has been bailed pending further questioning.

Another man was arrested on suspicion of unspecified terrorism offenses late Friday immediately after he gave a BBC interview detailing the background of one of the main suspects. The man, identified by the BBC as Abu Nusaybah, was arrested on BBC premises and remains in custody

FRENCH SOLDIER STABBED IN THROAT OUTSIDE PARIS

May 26, 2013

The Washington Times on May 25, 2013, published an AP report on France’s military spokesman saying a soldier has been stabbed in the throat in the French commercial district of La Defense outside Paris. Excerpts below:

The France military spokesman, Col. Thierry Burkhard, said the French soldier was wounded but that his life was not in danger. He had no immediate further details on the stabbing.

RIOTING RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT SWEDEN’S LIBERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY

May 25, 2013

Fox News on May 23, 2013, published an AP report on immigrant Swedish youth in sleepy suburban communities running amok, hurling rocks at police and torching cars, restaurants and culture centers. It isn’t France or Britain, but Sweden – a Scandinavian bastion of generous social welfare and egalitarian political culture. Though this week’s rioting outside Stockholm was triggered by perceived police brutality, observers say that there has been a surge of angst in society as inequality rises on a backdrop of burgeoning immigrant numbers. Excerpts below:

Sweden has long been a bastion of generous social welfare and an egalitarian political culture. So many people were shocked when scores of youths hurled rocks at police and set cars ablaze during rioting in several largely immigrant areas near Stockholm this week.

Few dispute that the violence was probably touched off by the fatal police shooting of an elderly man who had locked himself in an apartment wielding a knife. But some residents in the area accused police who responded to the violence of racism.

For some, the real reason for the unrest is the high unemployment and isolation of youths in the southern and western Stockholm suburbs where the violence occurred — ones who see little future for themselves or access to Sweden’s prosperity.

“The segregation in Stockholm increases all the time, and it’s happening fast,” said Nina Edstrom, a social anthropologist who promotes integration at a center for multiculturalism in Fittja, where some of the violence occurred.

“There are very large social differences. There are many unemployed, frustrated young people. I’m not surprised something like this happens,” she said.

Overall, about 15 percent of Sweden’s 9.5 million people were born abroad, compared to 10 percent 10 years ago. The influx has mostly come from war-torn countries such as Iraq, Somalia, former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Syria.

In 2012 alone, Sweden accepted 44,000 asylum seekers, up by nearly 50 percent from a year earlier.

During the rioting, 15-year-old Sebastian Horniak said he saw police firing warning shots in the air and calling a woman a “monkey.”

The unrest in Fittja and the Husby area is a challenge for the center-right government of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, which after seven years in power is trailing in polls and has come under fire for failing to address social problems.

The rioting also has added fuel to arguments from the far-right Sweden Democrats party, which polls now show as Sweden’s fourth biggest party.

Some say that one reason such immigrant areas can feel isolating is the growing disparity between the haves and have nots in Sweden, as in many other Western countries.

The difference is striking between native Swedes and the fast-growing immigrant population.

In Husby, the neighborhood west of Stockholm where the violence started Sunday, around 80 percent of the 11,000 residents are either first or second generation immigrants.

…youth unemployment is high in Husby and that nearly 50 percent of the kids in Husby finish junior high school with grades too low to get into high school.

Prime Minister Reinfeldt has acknowledged that Sweden’s income disparities increased, but said it primarily occurred before he came to power in 2006, and that he remains proud of his country’s liberal immigration policies.

Reinfeldt said the transition can be trying, but he added: “We are more open than other countries. Long term, as a society, we win on this. It will lead to more people getting jobs. It will contribute to a more exciting and open society.”

Note: Sweden’s Security Service on May 24 confirmed that three type of groups were involved in the Stockholm suburb riots: local youth, criminal gangs and violent left wing activists according to newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholm, on May 25, 2013.

OBAMA THINKS WE WON THE WAR ON TERROR AND IT’S TIME TO MOVE ON

May 24, 2013

Fox News on May 23, 2013, published an article by K.T. McFarland on President Obama delivering what was billed by the White House as a “major” speech on national security at the historic National Defense University. In short, Mr. Obama thinks the War on Terror is over, and he won it. There may be a few final details to mop about, but it’s time to move on to more important things. Excerpts below:

The speech was typical of Mr. Obama: Open with a broad sweep of history from the beginning of the republic to today.

Follow that with a laundry list of all the great things he has done to reverse the bad things his predecessor did.

Brush failures under the rug, blame them on others, or marks them as the inevitable course of history.

Maybe Thursday’s speech wasn’t so much about foreign policy as domestic politics.

Then finish with uplifting rhetoric, adding in a dash about the greatness of America.

The only new thing the president did discuss was his drone policy and targeted killings. Even then, he didn’t clarify much.

On the one hand, the president said drone strikes have killed “dozens of skilled Al Qaeda” fighters and taken them off the battlefield. Mr. Obama claims drone strikes are legal, effective and save American lives since we don’t have to put our boots on the ground. From that you’d assume drone killings are here to stay — we kill bad guys at no risk to ourselves.

But on the other hand the president wants to limit their use –and turn to them only if there is no chance of capturing the terrorists, and only if no civilians will be hurt. Under those circumstances it’s hard to see us ever using drone strikes again.

Frankly, it’s a muddle.

If the drone strikes have been as effective as Mr. Obama claims, why are there more terrorists in more places than before as has Al Qaeda and its affiliates have set up shop in new countries? And if Al Qaeda has spread, why limit the drone strikes?

As for the rest of the speech, there was nothing new.

So why did Mr. Obama give this speech? And why did the White House bill it as a major foreign policy address, the first one of his second term?

Why give a speech that focused on smaller issues like drone strikes and Gitmo, but avoided completely the bigger issues of nuclear proliferation, Iran and the Middle East?

Maybe the speech on May 23 wasn’t so much about foreign policy as domestic politics. Maybe it was an attempt to divert attention away from the scandals of Benghazi, the IRS, the targeting of the AP and now Fox News that have dominated the headlines and threaten to derail Mr. Obama’s second term agenda.

It wasn’t much of a success as a foreign policy speech. But it was a complete failure as a political diversion.

Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com’s “DefCon 3.” She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 “Principles of War Speech” which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine.

SUSPECTED MUSLIM TERRORISTS HACK MAN TO DEATH ON BUSY LONDON STREET

May 23, 2013

Fox News on May 22, 2013, reported that two men wielding a machete and a cleaver hacked a man believed to be a soldier to death on a busy London street Wednesday while yelling “Allahu Akbar,” in an attack that was caught on video and left the nation shocked and horrified. Excerpts below:

The victim, who is said to have been a soldier, was killed at the scene, and the attackers waited at the scene until police arrived and shot both. One attacker, his hands soaked in blood and still holding a machete, delivered an angry jihadist screed as stunned passersby watched, the dead man lying on the street, in the southeast London neighborhood of Woolwich.

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day,” he said in a video clip that was shown on the ITV website. “This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

“I apologize that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same,” the killer continued. “You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”

Witnesses said the attackers shouted “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is Great,” during the bloody rampage, according to the BBC.

Police said two attackers were shot by authorities

“These two guys were crazed. They were just animals,” one witness, identified as James, told LBC radio. “They dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road and left his body there.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who cut short a visit to Paris, condemned the killing as “truly shocking,” and said there are “strong indications” that the attack was terror-related..

Both French President Francois Hollande and MP Nick Raynsford told the BBC the dead man had been a soldier.

Scotland Yard said officers responded to reports of the assault, which took place just a few blocks from a the Royal Artillery Barracks.