Observations regarding Wednesday's terrorist attack in London.

They say old habits are hard to break; in many circumstances, I certainly agree.  My career as an Intelligence Officer had just gotten off the ground when 9-11 turned everything upside down.  No doubt espionage and intelligence collection would be more important than ever, and an essential part of the process has always been about understanding the target.  Now that I'm retired, I get my details from the news, just like everyone else.  But things have come a long way since my days as a rookie Intel Officer, and I can always find a treasure trove of useful information by switching from one news channel to the next.  Having spent time in Europe, I am familiar with the various press agencies, and during the Nice terror attack of last July, my knowledge of French kept me watching the live news bulletins directly from France.

Aside from the horrific terrorist attack in Brussels on March 22, 2016, which killed thirty-two civilians, the last three prolific terror attacks on European soil took place in Nice, Berlin, and most recently in London.  I have separated these three from the Brussels incident for a number of reasons.  The terrorist group known to the west as ISIS has long made use of vehicular weapons. For years, Iraqis and Syrians have been victimized by car bombs which purposely target large public events, including holiday celebrations and funerals.  ISIS will continue to use this method of delivering death because it's a basically simple way to cause a high number of casualties.  Rigging a vehicle with explosives and attaching a detonator does not take a munitions expert, and it's just about impossible for security in some countries to disrupt this manner of attack.  In Nice, Berlin and London, though, no explosives were used.  The perpetrators used their vehicles as weapons, flooring the accelerator and running down civilians with no warning.  In all three attacks, the perpetrator intended to exit the vehicle after coming to a halt, to continue their rampage with either handguns or knives.  It's important to note that these three attacks were carried out by one person.  No doubt, other persons either new of the attack beforehand and/or provided assistance, but the actual event itself was carried out by one individual.  The perpetrators were not rank-and-file ISIS operatives, but rather Islamic Extremists who had made contact with like-minded persons through Social Media.  For some time, law enforcement in the United States has been rightly concerned with the possibility of well-trained, terrorist sleeper cells embedded on our communities.  The reality is, as we open our borders to refugees who have traveled directly from countries which are known to harbor large numbers of ISIS operatives and sympathizers, we increase the possibility of either type of attack.

Most police officers in the United Kingdom are unarmed, as are law enforcement personnel in a number of European countries.  From my perspective, as long as the policy suited each respective country, then its a good thing to have fewer weapons on the streets.  I assume that this policy is being reconsidered, given that Police Officers have certainly become targets, and they should have the right and the ability to defend themselves.  The London attacker used a car and two knives to brutally kill four people.  A society can go to extreme lengths when trying to create a weapons-free environment, but time and again we are reminded that a person who is intent on harming another person will always be able to find a weapon.  Its much easier for the perpetrator to carefully choose what type of normally innocuous instrument to use as a weapon, but more difficult for the victim, when being attacked, to make a split-second decision on what to use for self-defense.

I chose to highlight the three vehicular attacks in Nice, Berlin and London, because they do not appear to be intricately-planned, resource-intensive attacks.  ISIS was not directly responsible for any of the three vehicular attacks in question, although they do deserve total responsibility because of their efforts through Social Media to encourage these type of attacks.  What is so frightening is that ISIS can claim responsibility and benefit from these heinous events, without actually having to utilize valuable, professional operatives, who are free to continue hiding in plain sight, until all the pieces come together to conduct a Brussels and Paris style attack, one that is heavy on resources and personnel.  It may be too late for Europe, but it is essential that the United States government take all necessary precautions regarding the resettlement of refugees from areas of conflict.  The Executive Order that has caused such an uproar, does nothing more than delay resettlement of refugees for three months. I believe National Security and the integrity of our international border are worth the effort.      

Europe suffers another terrorist attack, as the free world continues to search for a champion.

On Tuesday, terrorists conducted suicide attacks in Belgium, killing upwards of 31 people and at least  160 injured.  The terrorist operators chose to detonate their suicide gear in the crowded Maelbeek Metro Station in Brussels, and also at Zaventem International Airport.  This horrific event was no doubt some sort of retaliation for Belgium's aggressive efforts to assist the French authorities in identifying, locating and apprehending terror suspects who are using Belgium as a safe haven.  Only three days ago, Belgian police apprehended one of the individuals suspected of direct involvement in last year's Paris attacks.  I have nothing but admiration and support for the law enforcement authorities in Belgium and France.  Over the previous four months, a great deal of attention has been generated regarding the issue of national security, as everyday French (and Belgian) citizens have to consider just how safe rheir families really are.  Sadly, we aren't discussing Europeans on vacation who inadvertently got caught up in local violence.  The people of Europe are obliged to have public discourse regarding the safety of their own communities. This is a very sobering time for resiidents of Avila, Spain, or Cork Ireland, or maybe Schlitters, Austria, who have basically always been able to assume the relative security of their neighborhoods and villages, at least as far as foreign threats go.  The world has become a much smaller place, and liberal immigration laws and the lack of enforcement has provided those persons who harbor latent resentment towards anything from the west, to move in next door.  That reality is no longer worth the argument.  These people had to come from somewhere, which makes the continued debate regarding refugees from Syria even more important.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the terror attacks in Belgium, is the predictable, toothless response of the United States.  President Barsck Obama, who just happens to be visiting Cuba (enjoying Cuba Libres and good seafood while political prisoners and no doubt a number of U.S. citizens, starve in the Havana jail), tossed out the tired "our thoughts and prayers" comment to the press, and then continued his original speech, which was so ideologically leftist that Che Guevara saluted from the grave.  It is so difficult to accept (but we must, at least for the next nine months) the direction we are taking with regards to Socialist Cuba, when at the same time the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to embarrass Israeli President Netanyahu and create difficulties between our nations.  In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had been in DC or Durban when the news from Brussels first broke.  President Obama has laid down the law, policy-wise.  ISIS does not pose a threat to the United States, and any effort by the United States to take a leadership role in the fight against ISIS would be innappropriate.  This hardline "laissez faire" approach to international terror is living our European allies in a bit of a fix.  In 2008, when Barack Obama took office, the leaders of Europe were tripping over each other to be the first to be best friends with the first African-American President of the United States.  This sickening lovesick attitude (which pervades amongst the people of Europe as well), was on display in foreign relations, as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands were perfectly willing to grt in line behind whatever policy Obama thought best.  Examples include the terrible New Start Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, which was supported by Europe, the lack of spine in dealing with Russian threats against Nato expansion, and the never-ending sanctions regime put in place to force Russia to end its support of murdering thugs and guerillas in Ukraine.  Where has that policy gotten us?  Nowhere, except we have to change our maps to correctly show Crimea as again a province of Russia.

Now that the leaders of Europe have lined up their equities alongside Obama, they impatiently wait for the United States to step up and show some aggressive leadership in the fight against this evil plague that continues to expand and continues to kill.  Sadly Monsieur Hollande, Frau Merkel, and Mr. Cameron will have to wait at least until late January 2017.  Unless ISIS conducts a major terrorist operation within the United States, the European nations, as they are doing with the refugee crisis, will have to formulate policy sans the U.S.A.  The Obama Administration's wilingness to wait until the bad guys strike us domestically before we recognize them (and all Islamic Extremists) as the enemy is a terrible mistake, and very well may prove costly.  For a month or so, it appeared that possibly Russia and Vladimir Putin might be willing to take the lead in the campaign to destroy this group, but we found out, not surprisingly, that all Putin wanted was to strengthen the bargaining position of Russia's Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad.  So the free world continues to look for a champion, someone who will rain destruction on these thugs.  As things stand, ISIS has no opposition to its expansion into Africa (through Boko Haram and al-Shabaab), Latin America and Southest Asia.  Militarily, ISIS appears to have no problem fighting the Iraqi Armed Forces to a stand-still (even with air support and ad hoc special forces ops for Iraq).  Now that the Russians have stepped things down in Syria, ISIS feels no real threat or pressure.  I fear that this summer may bring tragedy to many people; I pray everyday to be wrong.

Post-Scotland: Crisis for Independence Movements in Europe?

List: Scotland Independence Referendum Complete Results


I was one of the many who anxiously followed the Scottish Independence Referendum results as they were announced. I'm not Scottish, but I love Scotland and I'm a bit sad that the voters rejected outright independence.   I'm also surprised.  I can't explain why, but I had this feeling that the voters would surprise the pundits.  Actually, they did.  The vote wasn't really close.  So I'm stuck humming "Loch Lomond" with a permanent vision of Queen Elizabeth and those ugly little dogs in my head.  Back on the continent, different folks with a variety of agendas set about interpreting the results.  Personally, I don't believe the referendum on Scotland is a precursor to anything (accept possibly another go by the Quebecois to separate from Canada).  Those persons keeping an eye on the various European independence movements now turn their focus on Catalonia, Spain. 

In 2012 the state government of Catalonia signed an agreement stating that a referendum on independence from Spain would be held in 2014 unless "socio-economic and political context make a postponement necessary".  Madrid is doing everything possible to legally combat the independence movement, which shouldn't be a surprise.  I will not get into the nuts and bolts of the Spanish financial crisis, except to say that I believe high domestic growth and international financing confidence indicate that the economy is on the mend.  The recent modest improvements in the economy have not discouraged the movement for Catalonian Independence.  Many Catalonians believe that Catalonia provides more to the Spanish government than it gets in return, especially when Barcelona is factored into the equation.  If Catalonia manages to hold the referendum in 2014 (which becomes less likely everyday), there is little doubt that the people will vote to secede by a statistical majority.  Even if the referendum is postponed for a year, I can't envision a scenario in which the Catalonian people vote against independence.  I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the only way that Madrid can avoid a separation with Catalonia, is by proposing increased autonomy, and hoping that the Catalonians won't act unilaterally.  Frankly, I don't see this ending well.  With the Basque question presently on the back-burner ("hey, we were here first!"), the Spanish people are beginning to resent the Catalonian independence movement.  Most Spaniards have felt the pinch of austerity in recent years, and the Spanish media never misses an opportunity to portray Barcelona as the Bacchanalian capital of Europe, with plenty of drunk students and money from tourists to go around. My biggest concern, is that Madrid will be obliged to provide Catalonia with virtual independence, and the Basques will be right behind.

In all honestly, the so-called independence movements in mainland France (Brittany and Normandy being the only two that have received any media attention) are used as platforms to attract tourists.  Both Brittany and Normandy have fascinating and unique customs and dialects, but so does every region of France (trust me on this one; my family is from Angouleme).  The one exception is Corsica.

Since 1960, Corsica has suffered through periods of unrest highlighted by violence committed by Corsican nationalist groups.  Because of its location, the culture of Corsica incorporates traditions from France, Spain, as well as Italy.  In the mid to late 1970s, the underground independence movement was responsible for a number of assassinations, including mayors and policemen.  The government in Paris reacted aggressively and many arrests were made.  In the 1990s, the independence movement collapsed due to internal conflict, and in 2000, French President Lionel Jospin granted increased autonomy to Corsica.  Since then steps have been taken to protect the indigenous language, which is close to extinction.  One issue that has consistently caused problems is the building of summer/vacation homes in Corsica by wealthy Parisian families.  The last time I checked, the Parisians were winning, I'm sorry to say (of course, there's nothing wrong with a polite, half-French, half-Texan buying a vacation house in Bastia, right?).  You can commit the Corsican independence movement to history; France has won.

I am fascinated by the case of Belgium.  Fifty-five percent of Belgians (the northern side) speak Flemish (Dutch), and forty-five percent (the southern side), speak French and call themselves Walloons.  I once read an article which described Belgium as suffering from a case of "linguistic apartheid", which, ironically, is a Dutch word.  Basically, Belgium is a country made up of two separate nationalities, the Flemish and the Walloons, and neither side wants to play with the other.  Belgium is a wealthy country of 11.2 million souls, and (more irony), its capital Brussels is considered the de facto capital of the European Union.  Having spent some time in Belgium, I must say there seems to be a bit of snobbery at play on the part of the Flemish.  What keeps Belgium together?  More than anything else, its royal family.  Don't misunderstand; the Belgians don't adore their royals as the Dutch love the House of Orange.  Its just that the royal family seems to be the one thing that presides equally over both sides.  The rational thing to do would be for the Netherlands to annex north Belgium and for France to annex the south.  Brussels (and its environs) could remain a city-state, continuing its important functions relating to NATO and the EU.  But for something this prolific to happen, enough folks on both side would have to make the effort.  And no one cares enough to make the effort.

I won't delve into the examples of German "independence movements", because they follow the same examples of mainland France.  Bavarians want to talk about independence, but only if you come for Oktoberfest and drink lots of beer.  If you enjoy history as much as I do, you will appreciate the case of South Tyrol.  This situation involves Austria, not Germany; but I took advantage of the shared language to build a nice segue.  Time for a bit of history.  In 1914, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire went to war against France, Russia, England, and Serbia (the Ottoman Empire, the United States, Italy and a few others joined later).  At the time, Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) were bound by a mutual-defense treaty with Italy.  The Italians chose to interpret their obligations quite narrowly and announced neutrality.  In 1915, Italy renounced its neutrality and declared war on the central Powers (Italy's former allies).  After the war, the victorious Allies dismembered Austria-Hungary, and, in payment for services rendered, gave Italy large swaths of Austrian territory including South Tyrol.  Even though another World War has occurred (in which the Italians switched sides AGAIN), many Austrians still resent Italy's land grab.  The former province of Tyrol is now split into North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy).  Even today, seventy percent of people in South Tyrol speak German and identify themselves as ethnically Austrian.  Austrians in Tyrol take this issue very seriously, and at times groups of armed men have gathered in the mountains, anticipating hostilities.  Why won't Italy act sensibly, and return South Tyrol to Austria?  It has everything to do with the fact that South Tyrol is a wealthy province, with a booming tourist industry and a robust agricultural sector.  Unfortunately for Austrian Tyrolians, the government in Vienna is more pacifist than Heidi, and does nothing more than occasionally mention the issue politely through diplomatic channels.  In 1866, Italy demanded an end to Austrian rule in Venice because Venice was obviously an Italian city.  In 1918, the situation repeated itself with Trieste.  How about a little fair play from Rome?  Don't hold your breath.

I began this post with a bit of reflection on the Scottish referendum, and really never made any correlations.  I guess that was the point.  Every circumstance is different, and the independence issues on the mainland bear more similarities to the late problems in northern Ireland than they to do the temporary family disagreement over Scotland's status.  I do believe the issues mentioned above will attract the attention of the European media some time before the end of the year (with the exception of Corsica), as some dispensation has been debated.  Personally, I'm anxious to see the Quebec independence movement (Mouvement Souverainiste du Quebec) reassert itself and call for another referendum.  In 1995, the vote was razor-thin, with fifty-one-percent voting against independence and 49 percent in favor.