Massacre at the Navy Yard - 5 Thoughts

I have a few thoughts on yesterday's incident at the Washington Navy Yard.

1) Investigation

The first investigative priority for the FBI/partners is to ascertain why and how this attack occurred. Did Aaron Alexis act alone? What were his motivations? What degree of premeditation was involved? Why did Alexis travel from Texas to DC? Specifically, why did he attack the Navy Yard? How was Alexis able to do this and this and nevertheless also attain a security clearance? On this last point, precluding some special skill that necessitated his hiring, this warrant of trust was (even without hindsight) obviously undeserved.

2) 'Control' Arguments

In the context of today's release of Grand Theft Auto 5 and Alexis's apparent interest in violent video games, some commentators will probably call for tougher controls on video games (as I've argued before, this censorship argument is both constitutionally and logically absurd). 

However, regarding the Navy Yard, the gun control argument deserves a deeper rebuttal. 

Anti-gun activists like to claim that firearms should be left to trained officials - police officers etc. But if they're truly honest in that opinion, why won't they allow military personnel to be armed on facility? 

Unfortunately, we're always going to have murderers like Alexis and morons like the firecracker thrower. This sad reality is not unique to America; evil bears no attention to borders. Yet, by explicitly ignoring the fact that highly restrictive gun laws in DC/the Navy Yard did nothing to prevent this attack, gun control activists are implicitly ignoring reality. Those of us who support the 2nd Amendment have logical, deeply felt reasons for doing so. We deserve more than the scornful disdain of casual authoritarians.

3) Motivations for Evil

This was a terrible tragedy. Yet, we have to be honest... it was also limited. Thanks to the skill of DC first responders, a relatively small number of people were killed. 

Still, the public reaction to this outrage has been huge. We've seen an outpouring of grief across America; reflecting this truth, all the major news networks have relocated their senior anchors to the scene of the attack. They know Americans want answers.

This unified national sympathy represents the best of America - our concern for the innocent stranger. But it also hints at something else - an explanation as to why individuals like Alexis and terrorists like the Woolwich killers, or ISIS, do what they do. In short, because they realize that one atrocity can create waves of mass attention, evil individuals are emboldened to malevolent actions. 

In turn, this is why our anguish must always be matched by abiding resolve. We must not buckle in face of terror.

4) Partisanship v Leadership

The President should be ashamed of himself. Yesterday was not time for partisanship. After their Syria debacle, you'd think that the White House communications team would proceed with caution.

5) Global Honor

Finally, just as we rightly pay homage to the men and women who wear America's uniform (and to the emergency services who risk their lives to save others), we must also remember that the cause of honor is a global one.

My other relevant writings can be found under the 'Other' heading of this link.

Israeli air strikes, gun debate, US economic news, drones in Africa,

1) The Israelis are increasingly uncomfortable with the evolving security situation in Syria. As the Syrian regime disintegrates, the risks of political instability escalate. For Israel, the primary concern (as evidenced by last night's IDF air strike) resides in the possibility of the Lebanese Hizballah accessing Assad's chemical weapons. Such a development would fundamentally challenge Israel's security/security posture. As I argued for the Huffington Post before Christmas, if Assad employs his chemical weapons, President Obama must order decisive US Military action. On a side note, with each passing day it becomes increasingly clear that the Syrian rebels will accept no outcome other than Assad's removal from power.

2) The Senate is currently hearing from various advocates on both sides of the increasingly polarised gun control debate. The left is trying to shred the second amendment and LaPierre, the PR nightmare to end all PR nightmares, retains false comfort in his self-created realm of delusion. Personally, I think that Congress should focus on improved background checks, better enforcement of existing laws and increased mental health information sharing.

3) The economy didn't have a great final quarter in 2012. The left are complaining that the cause for this retrenchment was spending cuts and that future cuts must therefore be avoided. In making this argument, they are obsessing over the short term. While in truth spending cuts will probably cause short term economic harm, without such cuts America will continue on a path towards the fiscal abyss. This would be a disaster. Ultimately, until we see comprehensive debt reform (cue medicare), economic growth will be suffocated by consumer/business doubt over the future.

4) The US Government is quietly improving its ISTAR/strike capability for operations against Islamist militants in West Africa. Because of the size and population sparsity that defines much of that region, drone platforms provide a crucial asset for on-going counter-terrorism efforts.

Enjoyed this. Earlier today, George Galloway was shut down by PM Cameron.

Syrian Rebel Victory - Taftanaz, US Entertainment Industry and Free Speech

1) Syrian rebels have seized a major Assad air base in the north of the country. Their victory (assuming they are able to hold the base) represents another step towards Assad's ultimate defeat. In specific terms, the capture of the Taftanaz base offers a number of key strategic opportunities for the rebels. First, being proximate to Aleppo (about 15 miles), the facility provides a forward operating base from which the rebels can now launch operations against government forces in that city. In addition, Taftanaz is located next to the main Syrian M45 highway (have a look on google maps) or in military terms, MSR. As such, the base also offers the rebels the prospect to dominate the direct route south to Hamah, Homs and ultimately Damascus. Finally, the capture imposes another psychological blow on the Syrian regime. Apparently the Syrian Army abandoned its position during the battle for Taftanaz. This does not inspire confidence in the regime's ability to motivate its forces. (Though the regime's elite units are ideologically conjoined to Assad).

            What can we expect now? For one, further government defections in the coming weeks. Also, increasing desperation by Assad and his allies in the Lebanese Hizballah and Iran (and Russia). On the Iran/Hizballah front, it's possible these two might attempt to create an incident that distracts international attention away from Assad. One note of caution however, the group that seized Taftanaz subscribes to a Sunni extremist ideology and is regarded by the US/EU as a terrorist group. One of the reasons why I support arming Syrian rebel nationalists, is so that these elements can counter-balance the extremists. Both now and after Assad is gone. We do not want a 2006 Iraq style sectarian bloodletting in post-Assad Syria.

2) The news that entertainment groups are meeting with VP Biden's gun control task force concerns me. The Federal Government has no place pressuring the movie/tv/gaming industry to self-regulate the content of their products. The entertainment industry caters to demand - if people don't like a movie or a computer game, then they won't purchase access to that product. Fortunately, we have the First Amendment. We must ensure that we don't follow the European route of limited free speech.

Benghazi and Gun Control

A couple of thoughts today -

1) Benghazi

The independent investigation into the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi has been released. The report notes that there were major security threats in the weeks and months that lead up to the attack. As I have previously argued, these threats suggested the need to improve the US security posture in Benghazi. Unfortunately this need was ignored. And Americans died. This incompetence was unacceptable and it's therefore appropriate that relevant State Department officials resigned. Diplomats risking their lives for their country deserve and require the support of their country. President Obama's Administration was asleep on this issue.

2) Gun Control

For my thoughts on post-Newtown gun control - see the last two posts on this blog.

President Obama's gun control task force has the potential to engage seriously and realistically on the issue. Or it can gravitate towards the liberal authoritarian wing of the Democratic Party and make suggestions that are doomed to failure.

Why states should take the lead in reforming gun laws

My latest piece for The Week

Newtown and the second amendment

"These are people we know and love. So loved by their parents, so innocent, and their death is so senseless." Rabbi Shaul Praver, Newtown.

20 elementary school children and 7 others massacred. Friday was a truly horrific day for America. Amidst such terrible loss, the victims and their families now deserve our honesty. Those of us who support gun ownership must openly explain why we do so. We must also suggest solutions to help reduce the probability of future gun related atrocities.

In the aftermath of the Aurora massacre, I stated that my support for the right to gun ownership had three roots. While I stand by this affirmation, in light of the Newtown massacre, I feel it's necessary to provide a more developed reasoning for my position.

So here it is.

The first reason I support the right to bear arms- democratic preservation. 
The original motivation of the second amendment was to establish a timeless guard separate from government, against tyranny. Recent Supreme Court rulings have upheld this viewpoint. While some argue that the right to bear arms is a dated relic, I disagree. Faced with high technology capabilities which offer government an unparalleled potential for intrusive power, though remote, the threat of tyranny is not extinct and must not be discounted. An armed citizenry protects against tyranny. In essence, the second amendment provides a physical capability to complement the ideological framework of our founding documents. Put simply, arms are the mechanism that would allow "the people" to "throw off'' a government that sought to detain us under "absolute despotism". However, it isn't just the capability of arms that's important for our functioning democracy. When Government knows that the people have weapons to defend themselves, government is more closely restrained to democratic conduct by this understanding.

Second- personal protection. The most basic human right is human security.  The Supreme Court has found that the operative clause of the second amendment grants an inherent right to bear arms. This is especially important in terms of the security that firearms can provide to more vulnerable members of society like the elderly or infirm. In contrast, where gun ownership is excessively restricted, public security is left almost entirely to government authority. In this reality, individuals are placed in physical danger and psychological fear. This often understated psychological element is crucial. For example, during the August 2011 London riots, in the inability of the Police to control the disorder, an undercurrent of helplessness and a palpable sentiment of fear spread across the city. Abandoned by government, people were forced to resort to extra-legal action. In a democracy we are due not only the right to feel secure, but also the individual means to provide ourselves with effective security (the police cannot be everywhere at once).

On the counter side, gun control advocates like to claim that the United States suffers from an unmatched position of violent crime. This isn't true. While we have a comparatively high murder rate (and must do more to address this problem), common violent crime levels are extremely high in much of Europe. In addition, access to firearms doesn't necessarily drive gun related criminality.  Firearm related homicides are higher in South America than in the United States, yet South America has more restrictive gun laws than the US. Gun laws in Connecticut are some of the most restrictive in the nation - but as the Newtown massacre and the ongoing tragedy in gun law restrictive Chicago illustrate, laws alone cannot provide a condition of security.

My third reason for supporting the second amendment - culture. Guns are an important element of the ideational traditions which define many American communities - hunting, range shooting, decoration etc. These activities may be distasteful to some, but for others they are deeply personal expressions of individual freedom. They deserve the tolerance of public authority.

Clearly each of my three components has its imperfections. For one notable example, fringe anti-government groups often excuse their illegitimate violent intentions by claiming a warped interpretation of the constitution.

BUT there is a route that allows for an effective balancing of gun rights and public protection.

We should work to ensure that where an objectively substantial cause for concern exists (IE - a combination of threats and comprehensive medical evaluation) mental health records can be used to restrict access to weapons.

We should more actively prosecute those who engage in the illegal transmission of arms to others.

We should aggressively punish those who carry arms when they have no right to do so (criminals with violent records etc).

We should improve RICO laws to enable greater action against gang leaders who allow their subordinates to carry weapons.

We should improve security at schools - with new Federal laws and funding if necessary. For example - providing teacher with firearms training and allowing those who pass such courses to have weapons at their disposal.

Finally, we should ensure that beyond the basic constitutional right to bear arms, states are given a wide latitude to determine the contours of gun control in their respective locales. Local democratic will should determine much of American gun law.
            In the aftermath of national tragedies like the Newtown shooting, we must find a commonality of balanced purpose. Protecting the innocent and preserving the right to bear arms are both imperatives, but they are not mutually exclusive.

Update - My other pieces on guns for The Week, The Guardian and my blog.

From 9/11 remembrance but Newtown made me remember it.

Why I support the right to bear arms.

Amidst the horrific news from Aurora, Colorado last week, I was reluctant to engage on this issue earlier. My thinking on gun rights is threefold. 1) Guns are important as a preserver of the national ideology of individual freedom that sustains American society. 2) Guns are an important part of individual protection, allowing families to provide safety for themselves. 3) Guns are important as a cultural tool in American society - hunting, sport shooting and in some cases decoration. I currently live in the UK (gun possession is highly restricted here) and while I obviously respect UK laws, I wish more Europeans would respect that the US takes a different view.

1) On the first point, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide for an armed citizenry who could in a timeless sense, provide for the defense of democracy. The founders sought to ensure that however powerful government might become, government would ultimately always find its power in the people via an understanding that the people have the power to "throw off" a tyrannical government and "to provide new Guards for their future security." In a society in which a substantial portion of the citizenry are armed, the opportunities for state oppression are inherently limited. 

2) On the second point, guns provide a physical and mental protection against threat. As a physical tool, firearms can provide a trained individual with the ability to counter threats that would in a purely body-body fight be insurmountable. Example - an elderly citizen living in a high crime neighborhood who is ambushed by three gang members. The positive psychological impact of this capability can be profound. I often tell friends in the UK that they need to analyze the fear that some vulnerable Britons feel living in high crime neighborhoods without any adequate means of protection. It was noticeable that during the London riots last year, many business owners lost everything because in the absence of police resources, those business owners had no means for protecting their property. Anyone who doubts that guns have a serious physical impact on crime should search for "self-defense" on google news every so often.

3) On the third point, many Americans enjoy utilizing the vast outdoors for the purposes of hunting, sport shooting and decoration (go to rural Texas). These events are far more than simple games. Instead, for many Americans, these activities are a celebration of American frontier history and of individual freedom. The freedom to lawfully pursue actions that provide deep, personal satisfaction.

Gun opponents often point to the level of violent crime in the United States as a reason why guns should be further restricted. I disagree. Aside from the above three points, the loosening of gun restrictions over the past thirty years has not lead to an increase in violent crime- the opposite in fact. I believe that violent crime is best countered by aggressive enforcement of existing laws - RICO, felon possession firearm etc. Further, gun opponents often fail to reconcile their anger about events like that last week in Colorado, with the fact that similar situations occur all over the world. Including in states that have highly restrictive gun laws. My personal opinion is that gun laws should largely be local. If New Yorkers want to restrict the right to bear arms to the home, then that is their choice. If Texans want to be able to walk around with AK-47s, that is also their choice. I support the finding of the Supreme Court that there is an incorporated right for all Americans to possess hand guns in their own homes. Beyond this, in my opinion state democracy should triumph.