From CNS News:

According to a Jan. 28 translation from BBC Monitoring Middle East, Ahmadinejad spoke on official Iranian television, saying that this year’s “Ten Days of Dawn” celebration, marking the anniversary of the country’s Islamic Revolution, would see the “demise” of the American system.

“I believe that 22 Bahman [ February 11 in the Persian calendar] this year marks the demise of the liberal capitalist system.” Ahmadinejad said.

This Week in Weird: Funding your own Conventional Force; or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the Internet.

Have you ever woken up and said to yourself, "how am I ever going to equip my conventional forces?" Feel better, we here at D&D have found your answer. Even if you are not a state, rebel group, or even paramilitary organization, you can still build up your air force, mechanized units, and force-projecting capabilities.

First up: AIR POWER
Surf over to Aero Kros, and start shopping! Perhaps you can elbow your way into the deal that Kit found over email:

Subject: Offer MIG

Dear Christopher

We have the following aircrafts and engine for sale:

1. MIG-21 UM jet plane ( without engine), year of manufacturing 1980, priced at EUR 20000

2. engine R11F2SK-300 , priced at EUR 10000

The planes were retired in the years 2003-2004 and their total flying time amounts to about 1000- 1655 hours respectively. Their airworthiness is contingent upon overhauling

  
The team at Democracy Arsenal has a great catch on a minor detail from the most recent DNI Threat Assessment.  In short, it notes that Hizballah is not actively planning terror attacks against the U.S.

While this would normally fall in the domain of my esteemed colleague, "Angry" Jeff Schneider, the Czar of Terror and Intelligence (like Mike Fratello, but even better with the Telestrator), it's simply too juicy for me to pass.

Too often we just talk about "terrorists" and the presumed existential threat they represent.  Not only is it foolish to describe a group solely with the term terrorist (it's a tactic, not an ideology!), but the connotation also lumps together disparate groups, many of whom actually hate each other.  By recognizing that Hizballah has not engaged in attacks against the U.S. in 13 years, and confirming that intelligence indicates no future attacks are forthcoming, DNI is taking a small step towards eliminating our over-reliance on a nonsensical term which obscures our understanding of the actual threats we face.

I'm not attempting to rationalize or excuse past actions of Hizballah - there is no way to justify atrocities they have committed.  However, recognizing that organizations change and evolve and that Hizballah no longer represents a direct threat to the U.S. means that we can better allocate resources and focus on those groups that do still actively seek to harm us.  Good for DNI to have the courage to make that differentiation.

    
I was planning to write a piece to supplement my last post and argue that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, everyone's favorite underwear bomber, was a perfect example of why utilizing the criminal justice system for terror suspects was the right decision.  However, I discovered that Adam Serwer over at TAPPED already wrote the exact same piece, and wrote it better than I could have done.  So instead of reinventing the wheel, I highly recommend you all check him out.

Additionally, in response to my previous post, my colleague "Angry" Jeff Schneider raised a few excellent questions about the feasibility of trying terror suspects in court.  He first questioned if it was even possible to give prominent terrorists, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a fair trial.  I believe it is.  Jack Goldsmith over at Slate gives a nice run-down of how the legalistic issues, such as an impartial jury, can be solved.  Steven Simon also makes the case that there is sufficient evidence that is unclassified and "clean" (i.e. not obtained through torture or other illegal means) to secure a conviction under standard legal rules.

I think this also speaks to Jeff's final point, about the danger of it become a Stalinist show trial.  I agree that the possibility exists, and it would be a huge problem for the U.S. if the proceedings are perceived that way.  In fact, it would be a national security issue, as I addressed previously.  However, I believe that, once the case goes to court, it will be conducted in accordance with the legal principles of the U.S., which ensures fairness and equality, and that this will be plainly evident to all observers.  If the concern is about perception, even a flawed trial is better than indefinite detention.  In short, I still think trying KSM in a civilian court is the right decision.

Tonight's Huffington Post headline reads: "America's Once Secret War in Pakistan Busts Wide Open". I must admit, I saw, I was intrigued, and I clicked. The story is one of tragedy.

"(AP/Huffington Post) -- SHAHI KOTO, Pakistan — A roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers and partly destroyed a girls' school in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday in an attack that drew attention to a little-publicized American military training mission in the al-Qaida and Taliban heartland."

"The soldiers were part of a small contingent of American soldiers training members of the paramilitary Frontier Corps, Pakistan's army and the U.S. Embassy said. The mission is trying to strengthen the ill-equipped and poorly trained outfit's ability to fight militants.

The soldiers were driving to attend the inauguration of a different girl's school, which had been renovated with U.S. humanitarian assistance, the embassy said in a statement."

Holbrooke also said the U.S. has not tried to hide its training mission with the Pakistani military."

"There is nothing secret about their presence there," he told reporters in Washington."

Amen Richard, amen.

We have, in this country, a cult that fetishizes the revealing of secrets. Sometimes it is a good thing -- Woodward and Bernstein, Tobacco Whistle-Blowers, and Tail-Hook -- but sometimes its a very, very, bad and dangerous delusion -- Birthers, Birchers, and recent Nick Cage movies.

But when it comes to US Soldiers in the field losing their lives, that is what the story should be about. Lets focus on what is important, and honor them with just the facts, and only the facts.

Secretary Gates has announced that he will be replacing Marine Maj. Gen. David R. Heinz, director of the Joint Strike Fighter program . In military terms this amounts to a straight up firing. This makes the fifth General that Gates has fired in his tenor as Defense Secretary sending the strong message that with stars comes accountability. (It should be noted that two of those Generals were fired for misplacing several nuclear warheads for a matter of hours, I think we can all agree that any Secretary in their right mind would have fired those guys)

The long anticipated QDR has finally arrived and all of us security geeks voraciously downloaded it yesterday and stayed up to the wee hours of the morning pouring over its every word desperately searching for something resembling a coherent defense strategy. Unfortunately, there is not all that much new to report. The QDR reminds us that we are still actively fighting two wars and that essentially we can't really figure out a way forward until we somehow extricate ourselves from those debacles. To that I say "Don't we need to be thinking at least ten years ahead if we aren't going to be caught off guard." The following is a critique of the 2010 QDR, which despite my overall disappointment, does have a few new ideas scattered amongst it.

  
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and anyone else apprehended and suspected of terrorism should be openly tried in a civilian court. Forget all the legal arguments and debates – this is about national security. The best way to ensure the safety of the U.S. is to give these men their day in court, in public, and allow the legal system to run its course.

You’re all familiar with the arguments against allowing suspected terrorists in court – it will turn into jihadi propaganda, it will compromise intelligence sources, and it limits our ability to interrogate terrorists. Steven Simon does a thorough job demolishing those falsehoods, but even without his well-reasoned defense of the judiciary a higher priority should compel the Obama Administration to send all detainees directly to court.

Despite what some pundits and politicians may tell you, we are not fighting a Global War on Terror. Terrorism is a tactic – how can you declare war on a tactic? Osama bin Laden and his ilk use terrorism, but they are not defined by it. They seek to destroy the U.S., or at the very least curb its power and influence. This is their goal, not terrorism. They cannot do this alone – a few ideologues, no matter how dedicated, are incapable of bringing down a superpower. And they know this. To succeed, they must convince the rest of the world that America is not the benevolent leader it claims to be, but rather another imperialist hegemon bent on conquest and power. In other words, bin Laden and others are fighting a battle of ideas, and terrorism is only one of their many tools to win that battle. If we fail to acknowledge that we are in a war of ideas, not a War Against Terror, we are destined to lose. By detaining and denying people the right to trial, we give undermine our position make ourselves more vulnerable.

When we abandon our ideals – democracy, freedom, and basic human rights – we help Al Qaeda make their case. The best recruiting tools extremists have ever possessed were the photos and stories that emerged from the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. If we want to win this war of ideas, we need to demonstrate that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a tragic mistake, not an indicative behavior. Keeping prisoners locked in military detention without charge or trial reinforces the negative image of the U.S. that bin Laden cultivates and strengthens his position. Fair and open trials send the exact opposite message – America is a just nation of laws and respect, not an imperialist power, and that it is bin Laden who is ideologically bankrupt.

If the Obama Administration is serious about protecting America, then they need to ensure that all detainees receive their day in court. It’s not about the legal minutia; it’s about national security.