WikiLeaks scaring the shit out of Americans

"It could be very, very damaging. . . . The Secretary slammed the release of the cables, calling it an attack."

- Jill Dougherty, CNN

"...there's enormous potential damage for the United States in these -- in these leaks, Jill. I assume that's what officials there are telling you."

- Wolf Blitzer, CNN

"WikiLeaks is creating a new and potentially dangerous information paradigm...."

- Ada Evening News

As never before during a national security crisis, Americans are turning to social media to express their fears.   A new survey of social media sites by a DoF research team reveals America's deep-seated fear of  WikiLeaks.

Dr. Rebecca Wolf, Deputy Secretary for Community and Social Media at DoF, has learned of Americans who "cannot sleep" (see here and here), so frightened are they of the subversive whistle-blowing organization.

Dr. Wolf writes, "The response on Twitter shows that the media is doing its job." She added, "Throughout the cablegate crisis, government and news media organizations have continued to cooperate in the interest of protecting the national security establishment."

The team's findings affirm that traditional news media organizations continue to serve a critical role.   Easton Syme, a senior DoF analyst, writes, "Rather than displace traditional media, DoF research shows that new social media tools complement traditional media.  Americans learn from traditional news sources what to fear; and the salience of the propaganda is amplified by social media.  It's a virtuous circle."

These tweets illustrate how America has reacted to WikiLeaks:

samtate Sam Tate  Wikileaks scares me

30 Nov 

montagious Monty Dhaliwal  wikileaks scares the hell out of me. Maybe ignorance really is bliss...

29 Nov 

sashanouri Sasha Nouri  This genuinely scares me. RT @cfarivar Gary Sick on Wikileaks, Iran and war  

29 Nov 

littleylittley Gregory Littley Wikileaks scares me, to the core. Hillary Clinton delivered statement on Wikileaks  

29 Nov 

jamesbailie James Bailie  wikileaks scares me. i have no idea what it is, or whether i'm going to die because of it....

29 Nov 

Larawriter Larawriter WikiLeaks scares me.

29 Nov 

DoF salutes everyone who has shared their fear of WikiLeaks by way of social media.  The reaction to WikiLeaks suggests that US citizens have learned to take perceived national security threats very seriously.   That's positive.  Of course, there can be too much of a good thing.   Scared shitless of WikiLeaks, the country may be at risk of paralysis.  Decisions will have to be made.  The question America's leaders face today is:  How to channel public fear of WikiLeaks into programs that will either profit our partners in the security and defense industries or expand the influence of the national security establishment?

Shortly after having been briefed by DoF opinion researchers, Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III participated in a panel with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.   Secretary Stag said,  "At this point, the government needs to do something -- just about anything -- and the sooner the better.  Basically, we've got to either bomb something* or pass some new laws.  Preferably both.  This approach promises to make the American People fee safer."

Mr. O'Reilly asked Secretary Stag if he could be more specific: "Assuming he's not too busy nationalizing American industry, what is the next step Obama might take?"

Sec Fear replied, "Obviously, the next step would be for our Commander in Chief to ask Sec Def Gates  to identify WikiLeaks-related targets to strike.   Whether the bombing is to be carried out by the CIA or the Pentagon, the president needs a list of targets.  He will also want to call up the Attorney General.   (Attorney Gen.) Holder will be told to compile a list of freedoms that Americans could be asked to give up in exchange for the perception of greater security."

__
* For example, we can try to take out Julian Assange, as suggested by the Rev. Mike Huckabee, perhaps by way of drone strike as suggested by an advisor to the Canadian prime minister.

Harper adviser says WikiLeaks could cause war

Does Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper understand the threat WikiLeaks poses to the topside of North America? It would seem so.  Speaking on CBC television, Harper advisor Tom Flanagan, recognizing that WikiLeaks has perpetrated a digital 9/11,  prudently called for the elimination of Julian Assange, the organization's leader:

"Well I think Assange should be assassinated actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

As Flanagan shares DoF's view of the world, DoF looks forward to working more closely with the office of the Canadian prime minister in the future.   (In connection with Flanagan's bold idea, we are also hoping the Canadians can help persuade the British government to provide an airspace corridor just outside of London).



With the help of Canada, we're going to get Julian Assange. In the meantime, be afraid.

Can Eric Holder protect us from the WikiLeaks threat?

Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Obama.

Whenever America is attacked, we have two choices:  we can roll over and die, or we can fight back.  Because we're America, we fight.  How do we fight?  We fight back militarily wherever possible, but because we are society of laws, we also fight by adjusting the balance between freedom and security.

Americans know the time for us to give up freedoms is before we are dead.  Precisely, we have to let go of our freedoms at the point when we are starting to become very afraid.  With respect to the WikiLeaks threat, we are just about at that point today. Americans are clearly terrified of WikiLeaks.   For example:

tojihun Jihun Park  i'm afraid of the wikileaks' side effect. it may leak bloods of innocent people.

Wengles Luke 'Wengles' James  This Wikileaks thing is quite worrying. Afraid it's going to mess up relations all over the world.

ihroon ☆ Haroon ☆ No sleep...  Ugh scared of these wikileaks exposing.

But there's a right way, and a wrong way of sacrificing freedoms. In World War II, FDR made a mistake by interning Japanese Americans by an Executive Order (EO 9066). Because Roosevelt didn't go to Congress, the resulting internment became controversial. And it ended up costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Fortunately, in 2001 Vice President Dick Cheney showed America how to do things the right way.  He asked Congress to pass the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act.)

By timely coincidence, the terrorists followed-up the attacks of 9/11 by sending packages of anthrax to Democratic senators and leading members of the liberal news media.  Fully cognizant of the risks America faced, overwhelming majorities in both parties felt compelled to approve the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law on Nov. 18, 2001.

This week America experienced what experts refer to as our "digital 9/11."   In the intelligence and defense communities, it is widely understood that the release of cables by WikiLeaks is the digital equivalent of the attacks of September 11.   Just as the strikes of 9/11 required the USA PATRIOT Act,  a similar response is called for today.   Where is Dick Cheney when we need him?

We may be in luck.  America may have a new Dick.  The Washington Post quotes US Attorney General Eric Holder today:

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that’s ongoing.” He did not indicate that [WikiLeaks founder] Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

The attacks by WikiLeaks have demonstrated that information can't be free.  It requires limits.   The time has come for America's lawmakers to act.

For US and Spain global arms trade is win-win (WikiLeaks)

Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile during a flight test (US Navy).  Spain recently bought 24.

DoF believes that America must designate WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization" -- and the sooner the better.  However, until the US manages to shut down or otherwise "silence" WikiLeaks, DoF will be working with other US government agencies and our partners in the US news media to help the American pubic interpret the leaked cables.

As you are no doubt aware, DoF is a big supporter of US defense contractors and the global arms trade generally.   When we sell NATO countries arms, we're giving our allies an opportunity to profit.  If you're a close friend of America, when you buy our weapons, you can later sell products that include US technology to less privilaged nations at a healthy markup.  America profits, and so do you.   It's win-win.

When the US government wants to convince one of its close allies to buy American-made weapons, we remind them that doing business with us can be profitable for them too.  For example, following is a quote from a May 7, 2007 cable from the US Embassy in Madrid (via WikiLeaks).  Addressed to the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of State, the cable concerned "US-Spain high-level defense talks":

.... Spanish Defense Ministry officials have seen you with Secretary Gates, and may raise  the issue with you in hopes of getting it top-level  attention. Defense Minister Alonso has raised the issue in public speeches and his people have raised it in meetings.  They point to Spanish purchases like 24 Tomahawk missiles and  US AEGIS combat systems for its F-100 frigates and S-80 subs,  which the GOS made over the protests of European allies like  France and Germany, and say that while MOD plans to continue a strong relationship with the US defense industry and knows that it is getting the best when it buys US, it would  appreciate a "gesture" from the US so that it can show  domestic audiences that Spain gets something out of the  relationship.  While we continue to push Spain to buy into  the Joint Strike Fighter program, we know that Spain is very  anxious to learn whether Spanish company EADS-CASA will get  the Joint Cargo Aircraft contract.  We try to remind MOD that  while there may be a dollar imbalance in the defense  relationship, Spain benefits from the relationship in other ways, not only getting the best technology for its military,  but also being able to sell products that include US  technology to third countries. 

By buying from us, friends profit with us.  The global arms trade is win-win for America and its allies.

Lieberman: WikiLeaks has blood on hands in digital 9/11

UPDATED
On Sunday, Joseph Lieberman, the great senator from Connecticut tweeted:

WikiLeaks' deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on our national security.

DoF analysts, including our well-paid contractors in the private sector, have reached the same conclusion.   America is under attack by WikiLeaks. Taking their cue from leaders such as Lieberman, concerned Americans wonder whether "cablegate" could be the equivalent of a "digital 9/11."

America's staunchest allies overseas are concerned too:

• Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini calls WikiLeaks the "9/11 of World Diplomacy."   (One of the cables suggested that Frattini's boss, Berlusconi, enjoys wild parties with Putin.)
• Australia's Defense Minister Stephen Smith told Sky News, "This is an act which again one has no option but to absolutely condemn it.  It potentially puts national security interests and it puts the safety and welfare of individuals at stake."

Lieberman, in a statement, has further argued that:

By disseminating these materials, WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. It is an outrageous, reckless, and despicable action that will undermine the ability of our government and our partners to keep our people safe and to work together to defend our vital interests. Let there be no doubt: the individuals responsible are going to have blood on their hands. I stand in full support of the Obama Administration's condemnation of WikiLeaks for these disclosures. I also urge the Obama Administration -- both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world -- to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables. 

Of course, when Lieberman urges Obama "to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables," the senator does not mean to preclude the president access to whatever extralegal means may be necessary.

US Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York and the incoming chair of the House Homeland Security Committee (which oversees the United States Department of Fear), has requested president Obama to "determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated a foreign terrorist organization." King wrote in a letter to Clinton that "WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria, WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States."

Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary Fear, told Fox News in an interview this morning, "In the past WikiLeaks has sought to embarrass our national security establishment.  Now they have chosen to target our peace-and-diplomacy-loving wimps at the State Department.  Though we may not approve their methods, they're our wimps."

"Something more than the reputation of America's leaders is now at stake," continued Sec. Stag.  "Nothing ought to be off the table in the War on WikiLeaks."

UPDATE
Craig Murray, a former British diplomat, writes on his blog, "These leaks will claim innocent lives, and will damage national security. They will encourage Islamic terrorism. Government secrecy is essential to keep us all safe. In fact, this action by Wikileaks is so cataclysmic, I shall be astonished if we are not all killed in our beds tonight."   

Tomorrow's TSA: more privacy, greater security

Good news for air travelers.  Changes are coming to airport security.  DoF has learned of developments that will not only tighten security, but make the entire TSA screening process more efficient.  Although hand-luggage will be screened as before, those dreaded TSA pat-downs and backscatter X-rays will soon be a thing of the past.  Incredibly, a new technology will even detect the presence of explosives hidden in body cavities.

Scientific Background
Analysis of blood samples taken from both the shoe and underwear bombers detected the explosive chemicals PETN and TAPN.  This means that trace amounts of plastic explosives enter the bodies of would-be bombers through the skin.  Scientists at MIT and Los Alamos National Laboratory have discovered that these compounds react radioactively with fucidic-ketrodimerol.  This means that a mildly radioactive catalyst agent containing fucidic-ketrodimero is capable of producing rapid ionization of PETN and TAPN in the human body. Hence the new TSA plan.

New TSA Screening Process 
Ticketed passengers will simply be required to orally ingest a tiny vile of uranium-sulphide-fucidic--ketrodimerol (UrSoFkd).  Having been tested extensively on small animals, with a radioactive half-life of only nine hours, this chemical is considered completely safe.   When mixed with aspartame, focus groups report that the tangy orange potion tastes delicious.  Artificially sweetened UrSoFkd will be marketed in the United States by IPIG under the trade name Securatine®.*

Presently, plans call for administration of Securatine® to happen at the airline check-in counter.   By the time your have made your way to TSA security, your body chemistry will be suitable for screening.  At the TSA checkpoint, you will be asked to walk, fully attired, behind a sensitized non-emitting screen that will register the ions given off by the Securatine®.   Detection of suspect passengers by TSA officers stationed at monitors will be easy and unobtrusive.
__
* Securatine® is a registered trade mark of Icarus Pharmaceutical Industrial Group (NASDAQ: ICRX).

The first responsibility of a defense secretary

United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

What is the first responsibility of a Secretary of Defense?  

Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary of Fear, commented at a breakfast meeting today: "I spoke to Sec. Gates on the way to the office.   Gates is first-rate defense secretary.  The man understands the first job of a defense secretary."

Sec. Stag pointed to a copy of The Hill, a political newspaper, and asked Easton Syme, a senior DoF defense industry liaison, to read aloud from an article.

Easton, a tall fellow with a CIA background, stood up and read the title: "Secretary Gates: On deficit, Defense Department is 'not the problem'."     He continued reading:

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a swipe on Tuesday at the proposal from the co-chairmen of President Obama's deficit commission to slash the Pentagon budget by $100 billion.

Gates said that such drastic cuts could devastate the military's force structure without any big impact on the nation's red ink.

"The truth of the matter is when it comes to the deficit, the Department of Defense is not the problem," Gates said at The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council on Tuesday. "I think in terms of the specifics they came up with, that is math not strategy."

Secretary Stag thanked Easton and said: "I would also like to address the moral question here."  Stag continued,

"Starting at an early age, American children learn what they have to fear: terrorism, drugs, the social activists, and the illegal immigrants. The Four Fears.  Many young American children want to grow up to become heroic warriors.  The youth of America yearn to prove themselves on the global battlefield.

"It's not for lack of fear that Americans become great, it's fear that makes courage and heroism possible. Reduce the defense budget and you deprive tomorrow's heroes access to the battlefield."

"But I digress. We, the staff of the Department of Fear, working with our colleagues in other agencies -- defense, Homeland, TSA, ICE, and the CIA -- carry a great burden. Yes, we have to defend America. But to do our job well we first have defend our budgets.  That means helping the American People to prioritize fear."

FearSec Stag took a sip of orange juice and said, "The Department of Defense is under attack.   Secretary Gates needs our help.   We will be there for him."

Everyone who had been seated at the breakfast table stood up and cheered.    

Twitter highlights for week of Nov. 7-13, 2010

Every week, DoF staff scour Twitter to learn the ways Americans are using new media to share their fears about terrorism with others.     Following are some tweets from the past week that caught our attention:

Mk_Moore (Melissa Moore) I am scared to fly in this country. Thank you, TSA, for fighting terrorism.


 

 kdara (Dara Katz) Scared to tweet about terrorism, and ... that group who does it a lot. Have I lost the war for us?
 

chachidoodles (Chachi de jesus)  tskk.. i hate it when there's terrorism attacks...  scared to go to the mall.

To keep up with the best of twitter, follow us.

Rebecca Wolf appointed Undersecretary for New Media

Honoured guests line up for security screening prior to entry into DoF Center for the ceremony.

Just a note to update you concerning an exciting development. On Thursday afternoon Dr. Rebecca Wolf was appointed Undersecretary for Community and New Media, a new position at DoF.

Rebecca graduated from Harvard University in 1992. After a four year stint at Goldman Sachs, Rebecca attended the University of Chicago where she earned a Ph.D. in economics. In 2004 she was recruited by L. Paul Bremer to serve as the Iraq Market Liberalization Liaison. Rebecca returned to Washington in 2005 where she worked at Treasury.

The appointment ceremony took place at DoF Centre in downtown Washington. Among the distinguished guests in attendance was former Vice President Dick Cheney, His Excellency the Columbian Ambassador to the United States, and Sec. of Fear Malcolm P. Stag III. A number of corporate vice-presidents attended, including Charlie Steele of Raytheon, Steve Gore of Northrop, Mark McCormick of BAE. Non-profit organizations represented included FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council.

Rebecca will be overseeing the future development of this blog, and our efforts to connect with the public through social networking. You can find Rebecca on Twitter.

Welcome to the team Rebecca!

Road map to a profitable US victory in Afghanistan

Sun Tzu taught that the art of war is not concerned only with winning, but how you win.   This point relates to the fundamental challenge facing the American military in Afghanistan.

If a new product being developed by Raytheon, a patriotic defense contractor, gets the hundreds of millions of dollars in funding it so clearly deserves, US troops will soon be deployed wearing exoskeletons. According to a CNN report, these machines will endow American men and women in uniform with superhuman, "bionic" powers. Resembling Iron Man, the American soldier of the future will be able to lift ten times his weight.   There remain a few small issues the engineers need to resolve.  For example, any soldier equipped with the Iron Man device must carry around an enormous power generator.  An individual claiming to be a US soldier, commented at CNN:

I am a soldier. Please, for the love of God, stop giving us more junk to carry. We have too much stuff as it is.   If I posted my hand receipt on this sound off, you would be shocked. For example, I have 12 sets of eye protection! I only have two eyes!

Each time we get new stuff, the military rarely has us turn in the old stuff. It just keeps stacking up. I have 6 duffel bags full of issued gear.  It weighs more than I do, and takes up more room than I do. Do you realize how much money is being spent to transport all this?

Also, the gear is often designed with an original intent, which rarely gets honored by leadership. They favor good looks and uniformity over functionality...

We wear so much armor and gear in combat it is difficult to move. It slows us down. If forces us the take more breaks. It creates heat risks...

Finally, beware of the true motivation behind these new creations. Greedy companies try to act like they care about supporting troops, but in the end, they do it for profit, not patriotism...

Of course, US soldiers know better than to criticize patriotic American defense corporations. Therefore, it is doubtful that the individual who left the above comment actually serves in our military. An impostor working for CNN, some member of the liberal news media, is most likely responsible.

Nevertheless, DoF intelligence suggests that the gist of the comment is true. The US soldier may be reaching a breaking point beyond which he cannot carry any more cool stuff. If we cross that line, should our brave soldiers start collapsing from exhaustion on the battlefield, Congress is likely to call for an official inquiry. At that point, there’s a real risk that the entire military procurement process could be opened-up to public scrutiny.

Fortunately, DoF has a plan.  The authors of an astoundingly prescient DoF report spell it out.   Read the Executive Summary for yourself:

Author: Saturn Cell, United States Department of Fear
Title: "A twelve-year road map to a profitable US victory in Afghanistan"
Classification level: Unclassified*

... Our idea is to entice the Taliban into carrying an equally heavy load of flashy-looking stuff.  This will give the American soldier a fighting chance against his once-nimble enemy.  The Pentagon need only find ways to covertly supply the Taliban with the same quantity of gear that US troops have been forced to carry.

Slower-moving, will the Taliban remain an enemy capable of stoking fear in our hearts? That’s a good question. DoF experts remind us that a designated enemy’s capability is not correlated with its capacity to frighten the public.  DoF analysis maintain that sharper dressed and more heavily equipped, Taliban fighters will frighten Americans as never before, increasing public support for defense expenditures.

The cost of supplying both our own troops and the Taliban with lots of stuff to carry will be substantial, ensuring the profitability of the defense industry into the second fiscal quarter of 2014.

The downside to this plan is that should the accumulation of stuff by both sides continue beyond early 2015, the day will come when neither side is able to move, thereby ending the Afghanistan war in a peaceful stalemate.  That’s why at some point it will become necessary for the Pentagon to curtail deliveries of stuff to US troops while continuing to drop appealing brand-name kit behind enemy lines.  Our lighter, swifter, more agile forces could be assured victory by as early as 2022. 

Under this DoF plan, the prospect that expenditures on the war in Afghanistan will not significantly increase beyond 2014 presents all the more reason for the president to scout new theaters of operation from North Africa to the Arabian Peninsula.  

___
*DoF preemptively declassified sections of this report after discovering that WikiLeaks had obtained a copy.

Time to permanently close the Washington Monument

Our military defended the Washington Monument during the 2008 inauguration.  (staff photo)

The Washington Monument, standing 555 feet tall, is an obvious target for the terrorists. Fortunately, the federal government is considering where to locate a permanent "visitor's centre" (Washington-speak for an airport-style security processing facility).   But current plans don't go far enough.

The Washington Post makes an excellent point:

Closing the interior of the monument, the construction of which was suspended during the Civil War, would remind the public of the the effect that fears engendered by the current war on terrorism have had on public space.  Closing it as a symbolic act might initiate an overdue discussion about the loss of even more important public spaces, including the front entrance of the Supreme Court and the west terrace of the Capitol.  It would be a dramatic reminder of the choices we as a nation have made....

DOF agrees the monument should be closed.  Concerning the various post-9/11 security measures undertaken at other popular tourist locations, see "The architecture of fear."  DOF believes that any risk that the closure of the Washington Monument would initiate "discussion about the loss of even more important public spaces" is remote (when was the last serious public "discussion" about anything?).

However, with regards to the Washington Monument, DOF maintains that even the closure of the interior of the monument would not go far enough.     That's because the monument stands on a hill overlooking the White House.    We believe continued pubic access to the hill on which the monument stands is both risky and inappropriate.

The planned DCCM will be constructed between the WH and the WM on the Ellipse.

DOF proposes that the section of the Mall that lies between 17th and 15th streets be permanently closed to the public.   Beyond a security fence, DOF recommends that the 10,000 square foot glass-enclosed "visitor's centre" -- which has long been proposed by the National Parks Board -- be situated across 15th Street.   This would afford visitors a secure vantage point from which to view the monument.   Alternatively, visitors should soon be able to admire the Washington Monument from the tower of the planned DCCM (see bellow).

Why is it desirable to close off a section of the Mall?   1) From a security standpoint, public access to a hill located above the White House affords terrorists "higher ground" advantage -- a risk we don't have to take; 2) Fencing off an entire section of the Mall, more so than the closure of the monument, will remind the American People of the dangers posed by terrorism;  3) Closing the hill on which the monument stands will serve as a sign of respect for the American presidency.  Symbolically, should mere citizens be permitted to stand on higher ground than their Commander in Chief?  We think not;  4) DOF anticipates that restricting access to this particular section of the Mall will increase visitor traffic to the Dick Cheney Carbon Memorial (DCCM).  As explained in a recent post, the planned DCCM will be situated on the Ellipse.   Far more than a monument to the petroleum industry, DCCM will offer visitors an education in the risks posed by terrorism and the heroic efforts of the Cheney Vice Presidency to ensure the survival of the Republic.

A public comment meeting on the Washington Monument security options will be held from 5:30 to 7:30pm at the National Park Service's National Capital Region Headquarters, 1100 Ohio Dr. SW.   If you live in the capital region, DOF urges you to attend. It's a chance to share your fears with your fellow citizens and the NPB.   

Lessons from a CNN journalist's Twitter experiment

Anchor Jim Clancy, CNN International.

CNN's Jim Clancy recently posted this question to a worldwide audience via Twitter:

clancycnn  Clancy File #QOD : Would you cancel a trip to Europe or change your plans due to the new terror warnings? Tweet away! Tune in The Brief!

Although a number of viewers responded to Clancy's question, the US Department of Fear would not call  Clancy's experiment a success.  We analyzed the responses only to discover that not a single respondent to Clancy's question choose to share anxiety.   All Clancy got back for his efforts, by way of response, were foolish expressions of bravado.

How to account for the disappointing response? It needs to be noted that Clancy's followers on Twitter are not the Fox News audience. They are CNN viewers.    Studies show that compared to Fox News viewers, people who watch CNN tend not to be well informed about terror threats.   On Fox News, even the most speculative threats get hours of airtime.  Nevertheless, CNN is making progress in this regard (we were impressed by its special report on the risk of "cyber attack").    A more pertinent factor is that Clancy's show is broadcast on CNN International, which, compared to its stateside sister network, puts excessive emphasis on reporting actual news stories.  Too much reporting of foreign news means too little airtime for interviews with experts about terror threats.

However, most of the responsibility for the disappointing response lies with the journalist himself.  Jim Clancy is not only a CNN anchor but a  foreign correspondent with decades of experience in war zones from Beirut to Afghanistan.  DoF maintains that foreign correspondents like Clancy have special responsibility --  a moral obligation in this dangerous world -- to show people that it's normal to be scared.    Viewers needed to hear from Jim Clancy himself about his own feelings.  The public yearns to hear from someone with Clancy's background that it's natural to feel scared when a Terror Alert happens.  But Clancy neglected to express his own personal concerns about travel to Europe.  Had Clancy given even a hint of his own personal trepidation about getting on a plane, riding the London underground, or strolling the Champs-Élysées, you can be sure that viewer anxiety would have spread like a shock wave.  The audience would then have thought:  if a guy like Clancy is worried, maybe I should be too.  

Fear wants to travel.  Clancy blocked its transfer by being overly cerebral.  Of course, thinking is not what journalism is supposed to be about.  Great journalism is about helping audiences to feel.   Fox News has this figured out, but CNN still doesn't get it.

Incidentally, the new media model for the transmission of anxiety by way of Twitter, as discussed in the previous post, is British recording artist Lily Rose Allen.   Jim Clancy and other journalists trying to reach out to the public on Twitter would be well advised to study her example.

Friends share fear

The Storm (1893) by Edvard Munch: The women of the town have gathered outside a house to share their fears.

In a previous post, the US Department of Fear urged readers to turn to social media in the aftermath of a Terror Alert.   We've been getting a lot of positive email about our proposal. 

But a question is also coming up.  Some readers are asking:  What if you aren't comfortable using social media?  

Good question. Just because Terror Alerts are transmitted through the electronic media, this doesn't mean you have to use technology to express yourself.  Why not strike up a conversation about the new threat with the people in your life?   We all have friends or acquaintances who don't understand the risks posed by terrorism (think of any people you know who don't watch Fox News).   

Perhaps you have a friend like Jacey Mint from Winchester, Virginia.   After Jacey's good friend Kate irresponsibly urged her "not to worry" about the recent Travel Advisory for Europe, Jacey says it was only by hearing "people around me keep talking about it" that she began taking the latest threat seriously:  

jaceymint Even though @communikate told me not to worry about the terrorist threat level, people around me keep talking about it & I am freaking out.

Friends share fear. If you don't feel the urge to talk about it for your own peace of mind, do it for the sake of scaring someone else.  Do it for a Jacey Mint in your life.

Coping with Terror Alerts the Lily Rose Allen way

The State Department recently issued a Travel Alert for Americans contemplating a trip to Europe. It's based on intelligence that the terrorists are planning to attack tourist venues.

State Department under secretary Pat Kennedy told reporters by way of a conference call today: "We are not asking Americans... we are not, not, not saying that they should defer travel to Europe at this time, absolutely not."

If you shouldn't cancel your trip, what should you do?   In a word, communicate!  DoF suggests you share your thoughts and feelings -- your concerns, worries, anxieties -- with other people by way of social media.  That's what people on the frontier of new media are doing.  For example, a tweet by British recording artist Lily Rose Allen recently caught our attention: 

• lilyroseallen Oh god, foreign office have put people travelling to France on high terror alert!!! I'm in Paris already.

The above tweet was retweeted by no fewer than 22 Lily Rose Allen fans.  Lily Rose then reflected on some recent experiences that had made her afraid, and she shared these fears with her fans:

• lilyroseallen Scared being here but scared to get on the Eurostar home.
• lilyroseallen Come to think of it. The day before yesterday there was this weird guy balancing a small bottle of something on his knee.
• lilyroseallen He was sat next to me at a taxi rank, I thought he was being strange so I snuck a picture.
• lilyroseallen I hope I'm just being a mad paranoid pregnant lady and that he wasn't a terrorist about to unleash deathly virus.

The last tweet about the possibility she had just encountered "a terrorist about to unleash a deathly virus" was re-tweeted 52 times.

Lily Rose is a world famous creative artist.  Don't be discouraged if your mind doesn't work the way hers does; if your imagination doesn't run away with you so quickly.   It's enough to simply share what you feel. 

Lily Rose's tweets prompted dozens of her fans to share their own concerns about terrorism:

• nicocleo seriously, we are all concerned at the news of high terror alert all over Europe :-(
• P_L4NE yeah unscrew the lid of that end of the world!! made in Affstaniganh by osama bin  
•  jessiesyard cross your fingers bit when it's high terror alert tis usually means they foiled a plot it's when (cont) 
• missbufton I totally know how you feel. Rucksacks, public transport and me are the worst combo ever. 

One fan tweet stands out -- it's one every celebrity should take to heart: 

• emz194 ♥ @lilyroseallen for tweeting normal tweets rather than advertising shit like every other celeb....boring!!!

What is more normal than feeling anxious about a Terror Alert?  As we like to say, real friends share fear.  Even if you're not a celebrity, supposing you want more followers on Twitter, you would be well advised to emulate Lily Rose Allen.    

The Department of Fear has been won over by Lily Rose Allen.  To us, she's a veritable "Fear Superstar."  Whether on Twitter or Facebook, we know that there are many others out there sharing fear.  Although you may not be as well known as Lily Rose, we admire you just as much.  A list of our favorite tweets is available here.   

What kind of ally is Germany?

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere refuses to warn Germans about the new risks.

In an article entitled "Germany downplays terror threats announced in US, British travel alerts"  Deutche Welle, the German state broadcaster,  reports on the reckless behavior of certain German officials:

The US media have extensively covered the US State Departments' travel alert for Europe, even naming specific targets in Berlin and Paris. But Germany says the threat of a terror attack is no higher than usual.

US television broadcaster Fox News, citing intelligence sources, reported that the Brandenburg Gate, the notable television tower at Alexanderplatz, and the central train station were specific targets of potential terror attacks in Berlin.

...despite specific targets being mentioned, the interior ministry in Berlin sees no reason to increase Germany's terror threat level and has said it will continue its current state of vigilance.

In a statement to reporters on Monday afternoon, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said that although there continues to be a general "high abstract threat" of terrorism in Germany and other European countries, he warned against overreacting to the travel advisory and media reports.

"There are currently no indications of any immediate threat of attacks planned against Germany," said de Maiziere. "There is no reason whatsoever to be alarmist at the moment."

This story by the German broadcaster neglected to mention that the present terror threat emanates from Hamburg:

A group of eleven or so jihadists from the German city of Hamburg are alleged to be at the center of the recent al Qaeda plot to launch co-ordinated terrorist attacks against European cities, according to a new report by CNN.

The German government has no business downplaying the severity of the threat.  That's why, during an emergency cabinet meeting scheduled for Monday tonight, Fear Sec. Malcolm P. Stag III is likely to urge President Obama to recall the American Ambassador to Germany.  

Of course, that's unlikely to help the situation.   This is not a case of a few bad apples in the Reichstag.  The truth of the matter is that today Germany is a mere shadow of its former self.

Dick Cheney Carbon Memorial

An artist's sketch of the Dick Cheney Carbon Memorial. 

Dick Cheney Carbon Memorial
DoF is proud to support the planned "Dick Cheney Carbon Memorial" (DCCM).  The plans call for the monument to be erected on the Mall in Washington D.C.    The purpose of the monument is to recognize the contribution of carbon fuel to American prosperity and honor those who have fought to preserve the American Way of Life.

Location
The DCCM will be built on the Ellipse -- an empty expanse of  lawn located between the Washington Monument and the White House.   

Specifications and symbolism
The monument will feature a 300 foot tall drilling tower enclosed by a fifty foot high security perimeter.

Mr. Cheney once said, "You got to have people at the top who respond to and are selected by presidents."  Perched at the top of the oil rig will be a statue of Vice President Dick Cheney.   The forty-foot tall vice president will face the White House.   The position of the statue will symbolize the oil industry's support for the modern American presidency.   The blast wall surrounding the drilling tower will symbolize the need to secure oilfields.

On the interior of each of the four stone walls will be inscribed the following:

• West Wall:  Names of early Iraq war champions: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Kanan Makiya, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, and Ahmad Chalabi.
• East Wall:  The Four Fears
• North Wall:   Names of terrorists captured or killed since 9/11 listed by country of origin.
• South Wall:  Two Cheney quotations.  First quote:  "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."   Second quote:  "I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now ... is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures to deal with it."

  
National Museum of Interrogation
Once visitors have cleared the security perimeter and are safely inside the monument compound they will be able to board an elevator that will descend one hundred feet below ground to a large subterranean cavern.   The space will house the new National Museum of Interrogation.  Exhibits will teach visitors about the role of advanced interrogation methods in keeping America safe during the dangerous post 9/11 years.   For example, staff will demonstrate the "stress positions" and invite guests to attempt them.  Visitors can enjoy interactive multimedia shows in the Waterboarding Gallery.   Kids can explore the fuselage of a Boeing jetliner that was used for extraterritorial renditions.   Teenage visitors will surely gravitate to the Drone Pilot Simulator  where they can practice targeting and firing upon suspected terrorists. 

The underground museum will also contain a full-scale replica of the subterranean White House bunker in which Cheney spent the better part of his eight years as vice president.  

Sponsorship
The DCCM will be a gift to the American People from a consortium of multinational energy companies and leading defense contractors.    DoF is also a proud sponsor of the project.

The Four Fears

The Four Freedoms are engraved in stone at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington D.C.   

In his State of the Union Address of January 6, 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed rights that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy in what would become known as his "Four Freedoms" speech.  

Seventy years later, in a speech at the Free Enterprise Institute, a Washington DC think tank, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III gave an important address to the defense and intelligence communities.  The statement was broadcast live on Fox News.   In the historic speech SecFear discussed his vision for America, modeled after FDR's "Four Freedoms".

SecFear said, "I call upon our government and its partners in industry to embrace the new state of the American psyche.  The time has come to commit ourselves to 'The Four Fears.'"

SecFear described the "Four Fears" as bedrock principles for a new American century.  On an overhead screen, over an image of stars and stripes, a list of The Four Fears was projected:

The Four Fears

• Fear of Terrorism
• Fear of Social Activists
• Fear of Marijuana
• Fear of Illegal Immigrants

Sec. Stag said, "Security professionals should constantly remind the public of the Four Fears. This is the best way to ensure continued public support for profitable national security initiatives."

Yemen home to world's most dangerous terrorists

A Washington Post report informs us as to the nature of the next big threat:

For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, CIA analysts see one of al-Qaeda's offshoots -- rather than the core group now based in Pakistan -- as the most urgent threat to U.S. security, officials said.

To paraphrase one of our country's Founding Fathers, the price for freedom is knowing what we have to fear next. 

Size of defense budget best measure of national security

What does Gary Hart stand for?

One thing we learned from George W. Bush was that when it comes to keeping America safe, a true leader goes with his gut.   On the other end of the spectrum, you have politicians like Gary Hart who are inclined to pose a lot of challenging questions before deciding whether to bomb another country.

But that's not the worst of Gary Hart's leadership defects.   James Fallows writes on his blog at the Atlantic: 

I am biased in favor of Gary Hart. I met him when researching my book National Defense back at the dawn of the Reagan Administration. At the time, as a first-term Senator in his early 40s, he was a genuine pioneer in pushing the concept of "defense reform" -- the then-radical idea that we should judge our military policies on grounds more complicated than "spend more" versus "spend less." Defense reform is a radical idea still, but that's another topic. 

What Hart -- and by the sounds of it Fallows too -- don't understand is that there is good reason for evaluating the efficacy of the defense policy of the United States on  the size of the defense budget.  Today it is widely understood that the more the US spends on defense, the more national security we have.  And that's a good thing.   The more money Americans spend on defense, the more conscious Americans can be made of the gravity of the threats this country faces.   Some defense spending, of course, goes toward publicizing threats; making the American people aware of the fact we live in a dangerous world.  A strong defense sector supports quality advertising and a news media well-attuned to highlighting national security risks.

Imagine living in a country where your only source of information was the equivalent of NPR, and you couldn't tune into Fox News or listen to Rush.  A place like that exists.  It's called Europe.  Relative to America, Europeans spend very little on defense.   As a result, the populations of European countries think they have less reason to be afraid. Indeed, Europeans are less fearful.  Europeans never feared Communist Russia in their bones, the way Americans did, right up until the end of the Cold War.   Europeans did not show sufficient fear of Saddam Hussein prior to the Second Iraq War.    Even today, except for a few of our allies in Holland and England, Europeans generally do not have sufficient fear of terrorism.  Also, Europeans seem indifferent to the outcome of the war in Afghanistan and oblivious to the threat now posed by Iran.

If Europeans spent more on defense, they would spend more time contemplating such threats.  The defense sector wants to advertise, it wants to spread public awareness of various dangers, but it needs to be properly funded.

Defense spending is the tried and proven measure of American security in our dangerous world.  Yet some people don't get it.

"Most of Canada would die, too"

One citizen who read the article commented, "This is without a doubt the scariest thing I have ever read."   Another astute reader commented, "It's not a matter of 'if' an EMP attack is launched at the U.S. - it's a question of 'when?'" 

They were commenting on "End of the world...for real" by James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. The article was recently published in the Washington Examiner:

A high-altitude nuclear explosion can create an electromagnetic pulse that mimics a solar tsunami, a fact validated in 2004 by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from electromagnetic pulse attack (EMP).

A massive EMP attack on the United States could produce almost unimaginable devastation by wiping out essential infrastructure. Communications would collapse, transportation would halt, and electrical power would disappear. Not even a global humanitarian effort would be enough to keep hundreds of millions of Americans from dying of starvation or exposure.

Nor would the catastrophe stop at our borders. Most of Canada would die, too. Its infrastructure is integrated with the U.S. power grid. Without the American economic engine, the world economy would quickly collapse. Much of the world's intellectual property (half of it is in the United States) would be lost as well. The Earth would likely recede into the "new" Dark Ages.

There's nothing we can do to prevent a solar tsunami, but thwarting a nuclear missile attack is well within our capabilities. "Countering the EMP Threat: The Role of Missile Defense," (PdF) a recent report from the Independent Working Group (IWG), offers some practical and readily achievable recommendations...

With the thawing of the Cold War era, many of us thought the threat of EMP had receded.  But the IWG authors point to a new danger: the possibility that a terrorist will try to use EMP against America:

Several years ago, Iran tested a short-range ballistic missile in a way that indicated an interest in developing an EMP capability— so this threat is not hypothetical. It also must be remembered that terrorists might purchase such missiles—even possibly armed with nuclear weapons.

What can America do?   We must fund the development of a robust missile defense system.  In these times of budget cutbacks, this will require political resolve.  A March 30 Time Magazine article explores how some far sighted Americans are working to build the political will to fund the development of the EMP defenses we need:

"Despite repeated warnings, Congress has taken virtually no action to prepare or protect against an EMP attack," write the Heritage Foundation's Jena Baker McNeill and James Jay Carafano. "In order to facilitate a national discussion regarding the EMP threat, Congress should establish March 23 as EMP Recognition Day" — not coincidentally, that's the date of Reagan's famous 1983 speech launching his missile-defense initiative.

As its own contribution to EMP Recognition Day, the Heritage Foundation... is urging lawmakers to shut down congressional cafeterias, walk to work, shut off their BlackBerries and turn off the lights. "If Congress took these four steps for one day," the Heritage Foundation says, "all members would understand the magnitude of the dangers posed by an EMP attack."

DoF strongly supports this worthwhile initiative.