<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Global</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/rss/global.asp</link>
<description>This is Global RSS from FSM</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>(c) 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:27:00 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://feedvalidator.org/docs/rss2.html</docs>
<generator>www.eResources.com (Generator)</generator>
<managingEditor>webmaster@familysecuritymatters.org (FSM)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>support@eresources.com (eResources)</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"  rel="self" href="http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/rss/global.asp" type="application/rss+xml" /><item>
<title>Medal Of Honor</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.300/default.asp</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.300/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ask Willa</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.254/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[The dangerous and heroic world of espionage animates our imagination in a way that creates exciting and mysterious heroes such as James Bond. But what about the heroines' Who are these women who risk their lives to keep our nation safe' And what is their real life world all about'.In FSM&#39;s series, Ask Willa, you&#39;ll meet one such woman. Using the pseudonym Willa, this former CIA operations officer worked to protect our country for over 30 years. In her column you&#39;ll be taken into the life of a real operative - a sometimes frightening and always challenging world. Find out if you have what it takes to do the work of Willa, master spy...!Willa&#39;s Welcome NoteDear Readers,Since this is my first article, let me explain that my name is not really Willa. That&#39;s my pseudonym (pseudo), well, part of it anyway. The rest remains classified. During my thirty-plus years as an operations officer in the CIA&#39;s Directorate of Operations (DO), I used a pseudo for everything I wrote. The pseudo is not a name you say aloud to someone, rather it is a name that is used in all communications. The purpose is to protect the identity of the case officer who is writing or being written about.Most pseudos are decidedly unromantic. Mine bore no resemblance to such glamorous names as "Alexis Carrington" or "Paris Hilton." No, mine was more in the line of Hazel Q. Zygoteendorfster, a name you would never see anywhere. But it served its purpose. It protected my true identity from anyone (a spy) who might try to intercept our communications and see my real name.I also had an alias, well more than one actually. An alias is an entirely different matter. Aliases are used when you are involved in an operation, meeting an agent, doing clandestine work. Unlike a pseudo, with an alias, you have a name and a history (legend) that goes with that name, such as Jane Doe, sales representative with ABC Corporation. The depth of the alias identity depends on the complexity of the operation being undertaken. If you are using the alias for a single meeting which does not have ramifications, you will not need a long "legend." But if you are using an alias in a continuing operational relationship with a potential agent, you will need to have an entire background story, namely a legend, with name, history, backstopping, and knowledge of the field you claim to be working in.Working in an alias identity can be exciting but you always have to remember to stay in character, just as in the theater, except in this case there is no margin for error, for missing a line or forgetting your character. Lives really can be at stake.Pseudos and aliases are but two of the devices used to protect intelligence officers and agents from identification in the complex and compartmented world of espionage.Stay tuned for upcoming insights into the world of espionage...WillaPlease come back soon to read Willa&#39;s Questions and Answers!]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.254/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.244/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[1. Why did we go to war in Iraq and what will happen if we lose the war'  2. Does democracy have any effect on terrorism'  3. What is the United Nations doing to combat terrorism'  4. Is the United States&#39; effort to fight terrorism abroad limited to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan'  5. We&#39;ve got the most capable military in the world. If other countries won&#39;t help us, can&#39;t we defeat terrorism on our own'  6. Are other countries helping us confront the terrorists']]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.244/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Global #1</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.245/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[1. Why did we go to war in Iraq and what will happen if we lose the war' There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. First, for several years, Iraq had been in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions on issues including inspections of its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. In early 2003, the UN issued its 17th resolution, Resolution 1441, to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with inspections before punitive action would be taken, an opportunity which Saddam Hussein refused when he failed to comply. Second, reliable intelligence from a number of countries suggested that Saddam Hussein had developed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons which he had already used against his own people when he used chemical gas to murder the Kurdish residents of northern Iraq. The attacks of 9/11 proved that there were terrorist groups in the world with the same vision of mass murder in the United States, and so the administration determined that it was too dangerous to allow an anti-American dictator such as Saddam Hussein - who had already attempted to assassinate an American president - to remain in possession of such weapons, unaccounted for by international inspectors. While he was unlikely to attack the United States himself, he shared the terrorists&#39; desire to injure and insult America. American leaders therefore believed that he may be likely to give or sell his weapons to interested terrorist groups. Since the invasion of Iraq, these weapons have not been found. But the near-unanimity of international intelligence organizations supporting the claim that he had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons , along with additional evidence, suggests that they may have been destroyed or removed from the country in the early days of the war. Finally, the United States believed that if Saddam Hussein were overthrown and a democratic government established in his place, this could be an example to the rest of the Middle East to stimulate additional reform and help reduce the forces that support a dangerous ideology of hate. The war in Iraq has not yet been won, but is increasingly being fought by Western and Iraqi forces, created and trained to defend their own homeland. Some people in the United States think that the American military should withdraw from Iraq, but if we withdraw before Iraqi security is achieved, the government will be unlikely to have the capability to preserve order and stability. The country could easily devolve into a civil war and even become controlled by radical Islamists, just as the Taliban had controlled Afghanistan, creating a destabilizing force in a strategically important region. Additionally, the Islamist vision would achieve new energy and prestige after driving the powerful American military out of the Middle East, attracting new converts and demoralizing the American people and our allies.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.245/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Global #2</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.246/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[2. Does democracy have any effect on terrorism' It takes a lot to convince someone to sacrifice his future to become a terrorist. This is not a logical decision for someone under normal circumstances and usually accompanies strong feelings of alienation. When a person feels that he has no hope for a better life and no control over his own circumstances, terrorism can offer an appealing sense of power. By carrying out these attacks, he is exercising the ultimate control over his own destiny and that of other people. Additionally, this decision is often made in the context of a society that has been permeated by Islamist ideology teaching that those people who die while killing the enemies of Islam are guaranteed entrance to heaven. The family of a fallen suicide bomber often see their loved one&#39;s decision as a source of honor and pride. Sometimes the family even receives a monetary reward which allows the suicide terrorist to support his family after his death. But in a democracy, many of these influences disappear. Democratic systems allow their citizens to participate in shaping policy, which gives them a stake in their government&#39;s outcome and a feeling of control over their own lives. Political freedom generally accompanies economic development, helping to eradicate the extreme poverty that may persuade many young men that they can only bring honor and status to their families through their own deaths. Both of these developments stimulate, and are dependent upon, educational reforms that can help prepare citizens for a diverse array of professions suited to their individual interests and abilities. Democracy is not merely a Western phenomenon, but is suitable for all countries with an educated population. All people deserve the freedom to influence their own government and control their own lives. When they find this sort of freedom, they begin to develop the complex network of social, political, and economic contacts that makes someone less susceptible to terrorist indoctrination and more willing to live and work peacefully.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.246/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Global #3</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.247/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[3. What is the United Nations doing to combat terrorism' While terrorism is an international problem that one would expect to be addressed at the international level, the record of the United Nations on terrorism has been exceedingly poor. A large source of the UN&#39;s inability to combat terrorism has been the varied value systems of its member states that prevent a consensus on what terrorism actually means. While the UN has issued vague statements condemning terrorism, it has been largely handicapped by the adage that "One country&#39;s terrorist is another country&#39;s freedom fighter." If the UN labels a particular group as a terrorist organization, it is issuing a de facto judgment on that group&#39;s objectives and condemning them as unacceptable in the international order. Additionally, UN action is largely curtailed by the domestic political ambitions of its member states that are frequently at odds with the best and most humane policy. In the case of the war against Iraq, several members of the Security Council refused to give their support, claiming a variety of reasons. Later investigations revealed that their citizens and leaders were greatly profiting by illegal relationships with Saddam Hussein&#39;s government through a corrupt aid program. When no consensus can be reached upon the nature of terrorism and its appropriate solution, and no action can be taken because of individual countries&#39; independent agendas, it is not surprising that the UN has been largely ineffective in dealing with terrorism. Nevertheless, the United States recognizes the importance of the UN in fighting terrorism and is therefore working to achieve the necessary reform to improve its capacities and credibility.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.247/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Global #4</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.248/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[4. Is the United States&#39; effort to fight terrorism abroad limited to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan' While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the most high-profile elements of America&#39;s strategy to combat terrorism abroad, our anti-terror policies are actually much broader. American intelligence services are actively working in coordination with foreign services to identify and locate potential and proven terrorists across the world. They are also tracking known funding sources for terrorist organizations and monitoring the flow of money. While the intelligence component of the war on terrorism is not as obvious as the military operations, it represents an essential and powerful tool in the American arsenal. In addition to military and intelligence operations, the United States is combating terrorism abroad through traditional diplomacy that brings the support and cooperation of allied nations to the American cause and through public diplomacy to win the support and respect of foreign peoples for American policies and to undermine terrorist propaganda in foreign countries. Finally, the United States is actively involved in non-proliferation efforts, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, designed to contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction and prevent their use on civilian populations by terrorist groups.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.248/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Global #5</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.249/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[5. We&#39;ve got the most capable military in the world. If other countries won&#39;t help us, can&#39;t we defeat terrorism on our own' Unfortunately, the United States cannot defeat terrorism without the support of other nations. While we have immense military, intelligence, and economic resources, we still need the active support of likeminded governments and peoples throughout the world. This sort of multinational support lends credence and legitimacy to the American cause. It gives us access to information that we would be otherwise unable to achieve and entrance to regions that would be otherwise off-limits. It allows us to mount a large offensive against terrorism that spreads across several continents while still preserving the resources to address our own domestic needs. It decreases support for terrorists worldwide and forces them to confront a broadly united group of enemies, spreading their own resources thin and wearing on their morale. If the United States attempted to fight the war on terrorism by itself, it would alienate itself from the international community and likely bankrupt its budget, while not achieving as conclusive a victory in the end. Currently, there are dozens of nations involved in the war against Islamist terrorists in some capacity.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.249/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Global #6</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.250/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[6. Are other countries helping us confront the terrorists' The United States has a number of allies in the war on terrorism. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out by coalitions led by the United States and supported by many other nations. While some countries lacked the resources to send large numbers of troops, they contributed as much as they were able. Other countries, notably the United Kingdom and Australia, contributed substantial military forces and financial aid. In non-military operations, the United States enjoys a close working relationship with the countries of Europe, as well as many countries in the Middle East and Asia, that allows for important information sharing and otherwise unavailable access to remote areas and isolated groups. Terrorism poses an international threat to the world and must be addressed in an international way in order to be fully defeated.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.250/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Military Operations</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.52/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[Milatary operations in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . The American military&#39;s role in the war on terrorism primarily centers on the identification and neutralization of existing enemies. Some of these enemies are fairly obvious. The United States is quite certain that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that Osama Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda. Therefore, military operations against Al Qaeda targets are an important and inescapable part of the war on terrorism. Other enemies are less well defined. At what point does a group or a government that shares an ideology with terrorists become a terrorist supporter and an American enemy' Is it enough to subscribe to the same version of radical Islam' Must they provide material support or is simply turning a blind eye toward certain activities sufficient' Is there a real difference between providing funding and providing training' Following the American invasion in October, 2001, the Taliban government quickly fell. Numerous Al Qaeda training camps were destroyed and most of the country was stabilized in a relatively brief period. Al Qaeda leaders were captured and killed and Bin Laden himself narrowly escaped during the battle of Tora Bora, a mountainous stronghold overtaken by American forces. Today, the people of Afghanistan have participated in several elections, schools are no longer dominated by radical Islamist ideology, and girls and women have regained their basic rights and freedoms. For the first time in decades, the country is relatively stable. However, the effort of American troops and their allies in Afghanistan is not quite complete. The mountainous regions of the north and the east are still home to the ancient tribal leaders who have never fully respected the sovereignty of the Afghan government. Many remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda remain in the harsh northern and eastern regions as well, still capable of attacks on military forces. These mountains have been the home for fiercely independent and tribal groups for many centuries and have not yet been fully infiltrated by Western armies or the new Afghan government. And, of course, Osama Bin Laden has not yet been captured. Many observers believe that he and his top lieutenants remain in the unforgiving territory that spans the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, moving relatively freely with the aid and protection of local leaders. Until he is captured, killed, or driven from the region, the American mission is unlikely to end. 2. IraqOne of the primary objectives of the American war on terrorism is the neutralization of governments and groups that support terrorist activities. It is not necessary to eliminate these parties completely, but simply to bring them into the international family of legitimate and cooperative states. Saddam Hussein represents a high profile example of this American effort. Saddam had ruled Iraq for many years, during which he had waged a lengthy war with Iran, brutalized his own people, and participated in assorted corruption and conspiracy schemes. In 1990, he invaded and occupied Kuwait, an innocent country, precipitating a war with the United States and numerous allies. During this war, the coalition forces discovered that he had been developing weapons of mass destruction. Some, such as chemical and biological weapons, were used against his own people, particularly the northern Kurds. Others, such as nuclear weapons, did not yet exist, though he had launched a development program that had progressed much farther than any Americans had suspected. Following this war, the United Nations imposed an assortment of sanctions upon Iraq, designed to prevent further aggression and to monitor any further weapons developments. Ten years later, Saddam Hussein had repeatedly failed to comply with these restrictions. He refused to allow international inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, violated no-fly zones established by the UN, and killed thousands of his own people in retaliation for their support of coalition forces during the Gulf War. He supported a conspiracy to kill former President George H. W. Bush and offered substantial financial rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. During the 1990&#39;s, the international community allowed these flagrant violations of international law to pass without a substantial response. 9/11, however, indicated that a new era of international politics had begun. The threat of Islamist terrorism loomed over the West and the risks of further attacks, potentially with weapons of mass destruction, were unthinkable. A coalition of nations determined that Saddam&#39;s presence in the Middle East, with a known WMD program that could not be tracked, with a flagrant disregard for international laws, and with a demonstrable willingness to support violence and terrorism, was too destabilizing to accept. For more than ten years, he was offered chances to comply with UN requirements and for all that time he flaunted his defiance in the face of the international community. In 2002 and 2003, he again refused full access to suspected weapons sites and records, content instead to conceal his capabilities rather than act honestly and straightforwardly. Finally, in March, 2003, a thirty-nation coalition led by the United States, acted to eliminate the dangerous and destabilizing threat he posed to the region and to the world. Since that invasion, Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party have been removed from power, national elections have been held, and a new constitution written. For the first time in decades, Iraq is on the path toward becoming a normalized member of the international community. However, the path to legitimacy is a difficult one that has taken previous countries, such as Germany and Japan, many years and is presenting obstacles for the Iraqi transition. Iraq today is a magnet for potential terrorists throughout the region. It is the closest place that a young radicalized man can go to "fight the infidels". Many Islamists see it as an opportunity to inflict a grievous defeat upon the United States, for if they can drive the Americans out, they will have proven their resolve and capabilities. For this reason, terrorist organizations and anti-American governments have been supplying funds, equipment, and manpower to the Iraqi insurgency, hoping to drain and ultimately defeat the American military. They appear to be fighting a losing battle, though, as the examples of democracy and cooperation spread throughout the Middle East, more countries have free elections, and even such anti-American stalwarts as Libya lay down their weapons. The objective in Iraq]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global/pageID.52/default.asp</guid>
</item>
</channel></rss>
