I told you so ...

On 9/11, I told a few friends I spoke with that day, that Osama bin-Laden had just declared that his brand of terror is going out of business. Mr. bin Laden had just hit America's two nerve centers: The Twin Towers in New York City, and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The home of two of America's most important assets: Treasure, and blood. In that September attack, al-Qaida had become the top priority revenge act by the men and women who were going to go get Osama Dead or Alive, and they would be financed in no small part by Wall Street.

Today, America has dealt a swift blow to al-Qaida. Taking out the world's most wanted terrorist is a huge accomplishment for the Americans.

All the same, wouldn't it have been best to capture him alive, and humiliate him by treating him as a common prisoner in an American court of law?

So America has proven it could kill him. Big whoop. Now he's dead. Totally useless in any information war. America and the Coalition still have oodles of Taliban and al-Qaida to smoke out and hunt down.

What I find laughable is how so many in the media are reporting that bin-Laden was long suspected of living in a cave in the mountainous regions of Pakistan near the Afghan border. It was obvious to me and various friends and colleagues that Mr. bin-Laden was living in comfort, most likely in a nice sized house or mansion, surrounded by pricey security systems, in a place where no one would much notice -- or mind -- his presence.

That it was not obvious to those supposed 'experts' working on it, or covering it, is telling of the general misunderstanding which Westerners have about such idiosyncratic
infamous iconoclasts.

And now, after his body has been shot up, shaken down, washed, and tossed out at sea, come the questions.

1) Where's the proof?
Until Osama's dead body is displayed in photo and/or video and/or other means, there will only be growing noises, rumors and conspiracy theories. No doubt the wackiest crackpots will always believe insane myths, but at least convincing evidence will quell the rumor mills for the majority of people.

2) Why is America barely responding except through lowly bureaucrats to the threats and anti-American statements coming not only from al-Qaida remnants, but from the likes of both the Palestinian Hamas and Fatah?
The United States and its allies should be launching a PR offensive, to remind the world just exactly what al-Qaida is and what their aims are.

3) Now that Osama is dead, is Obama going to keep up the fight and the hunt for the remaining al-Qaida and Taliban?

4) How will long term strategy and prosecution of the War on Terror (or as Obama likes to call it, the Fight against al-Qaida) evolve, now that the iconic head of the snake is dead?

5) How will American foreign policy evolve now that its most wanted terrorist for the past decade, is gone?

With the great distraction of Osama's death, will Obama remain vigilant in the face of the regional revolution sweeping Araby? Will Gaddafi and Sallah be forced out? What will happen when Syria gets much bloodier? What will happen when Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are sick of their leaders and pulling off their own revolutions one way or another? How will America pick and choose which people to support, when those who want freedom are fighting the dictators who oppress them -- often with the help of American money and arms?

6) And finally, how will America remain focused on the remaining most wanted terrorists, as well as a host of developing realities in nations across the Middle East, and Europe, while at the same time it has to combat home-grown terror threats in the United States?
America's Modus Operandi over the next days, weeks and months will be very indicative of the kinds of procedure and routine we can expect to see over time.

When will Obama admit that Israel's policy is the bleeding edge of the War on Terror, and that Israel's fight is America's fight? America should end the facade of neutrality in its stance on Israel, and make clear that there will be no more tolerance for the kind of forked-tongue politics that dominate so much of Arab and Muslim power systems; saying that they are against terror, yet at the same time carrying it out.

Finally, much credit deserves to go to those who made Osama's death happen, from the President to the former President, to the SEALs, the overall military, intelligence, and other communities involved. Without their ongoing willpower to succeed in this hunt, they did prove that America can achieve its aims -- even if sometimes that aim is to hit an aging weakling hiding behind ideology, religion and women.

The Thing No One Wants To Say: Why the War in Libya May Not Be Enough

The evidence is clear. The Libyan Army, under control of Gaddafi, is a professional military, with some form of discipline and professionalism. The rebel armed forces, are an ill-equipped, largely untrained, undisciplined, volunteer army, whose only hope for victory is in Allah and enhanced NATO participation against the Gadafi regime.

At every turn, whenever the NATO bombs do not strike Gadafi's loyalists on the battlefield, those Libyans easily force a retreat out of the rebels.

If the Arab League, the West, the UN and NATO truly wish for the rebels to topple Khadafi, the option to just sustain a mealy-mouthed alliance and not delivering much needed arms, defenses and humanitarian supplies to the rebels is non-existent. Further, they must establish official lines of communication, just as France did first, with the rebel government. Finally, they must offer some form of training and coordinate with the rebels, to make sure that their efforts are not in vain. No matter how much NATO bombs from the air, that is unlikely to give the rebels a victory, if they are incapable of mounting any real battles against the regular Libyan army.

Short of these steps, the coalition's efforts may end up merely creating two Libyas, and the need to police both for an undetermined amount of time, at a period when NATO could be much better used in other critical tasks, for example: liberating the people of, say, Syria.

It would be a giant setback to the rebels of Libya if they don't win. It would be an even greater loss for NATO and the UN and all those who back this action against the Ghadafi regime. And it would be a huge victory for all the remaining tyrants and despots who use brutal savagery against their own People.

The truth is that this great Arab Spring revolution has potential to go extremely well or extremely badly. If Gadaffi is not dislodged from power, it will signal to other dictators that they may keep their power, if only by hunkering down and being extremely mad and violent.

One other such dictator is Bashar al-Assad of Syria. If Bashar Assad manages to keep his PR image in the US Congress as that of a "reformer" while he remains a terrorism sponsor who answers to Iran and rules Lebanon by proxy, and uses brute violent lethal force to repress the human rights of his own Syrian People, then he may well keep power and avoid a no-fly zone, destruction of his air, sea, and land defenses, along with untold human carnage of his military.

This could also make it easier for Yemen's President Sallah to keep his grip on power, by demonstrating any form of political reform and urging his friends in Washington to lend a hand to quash that civil unrest.

The ironic thing is that President Obama campaigned against this exact sort of double-standards geopolitics. Obama beat McCain in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections by promising not to maintain the Bush doctrine of making the United States of America a selective world police. That doctrine was driven by capabilities and limits of power, not by popularity. Yet Obama is executing the Bush doctrine, only on a much larger scale than Bush ever did, and he is pretending not to be doing it. President Obama is allowing his global policies, and his moral compass, to be guided by public opinion polls.

President Bush led two wars. All out wars. Not international police actions, along the lines of President Clinton's efforts in Serbia and Kosovo. Wars. President Obama is leading an international police action. Like Kosovo. Like Vietnam. Like Korea. All of these were long, drawn-out conflicts, which did not have to be so long, so ugly, or so costly in terms of blood and treasure.

With all due respect and recognition of the man's intellect, and his capabilities and achievements, President Obama is clearly out of his league, in terms of his grasp of the multi-faceted situation facing the United States, its allies, its interests, and how to handle it all. I am not saying that President Obama is incapable of getting out of this situation with a good mark. I am just saying that so far, he is doing poorly.

If President Obama were indeed a great leader, then he should have been able to go do his little South America trip without having to lose much sleep at night, knowing his political alliance was rock solid, and that the military was doing its job based on a clear policy with clear objectives, and with the full weight of and support of the American government. He should not have to send Hillary Clinton to do the grunt work of any other senior diplomat. There should not have to be a conference requiring so many heads of state, every week or two, just to deal with Gadafi. Libya, in the context of the world, should not have taken so much effort to resolve.

This was a clear cut case. Evil dictator using force against democracy-seeking protesters and rebels. It's America's own history, told in another place and time. This was a perfect opportunity for President Obama to show that his multi-nation alliance and sophisticated diplomacy could do the job quickly, efficiently, and without costing America its reputation abroad, which is what he accused President Bush of damaging by being a unilateralist.

President Obama blew it. Now it's messy, and yes, it's his fault.

If President Obama had wanted to enjoy his visit to Brazil and Chile, he should have admitted that he has adopted the Bush doctrine and done whatever it takes to win, quickly and decisively. He would have formed a Coalition of the Willing, damn the naysayers and routed Gadafi from power within days. Instead, he just kept attacking the Bush doctrine in his rhetoric, while not mounting the all-out assault on Gadafi which is required to win.

Instead, President Obama has promised to be a multilateralist, and has now proven himself to be one in this case. The result of such diplomatic hemming and hawing is the unnecessary lengthening of the war, which now hangs in the balance, with a fractioned alliance, unclear policy, unclear enforcement rules, unclear leadership, unclear milestones going forward, and an unclear end game. Add that all up, and it doesn't sound good.

President Obama, of course, is already campaigning for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections. So his interest in being decisive without strong backing in the polls, is very limited. President Obama, a master of How To Win The Presidency Without Really Trying, knows that he doesn't have to worry about those people in Araby fighting tooth and nail for their freedom. He needs to worry about jobs and the U.S. economy for all those electorate votes. Otherwise, he would already be a lame duck.

Yet all hope is not lost for these Pan-Arab protestors and rebels. Despite losses, those who seek peace, freedom and democracy, must remember that there is always a high price to pay for freedom, especially at the outset. Often in history, those who were right suffered for a long time at the hands of those who had might, until eventually those who were right, won.

There may be a great loss in Libya. It may cost thousands of lives. It would be a defeat of morale for pro-democracy supporters, There may be many great losses in the Arab Spring, across many countries. We may yet be just at the start of a long struggle before the Middle East is more settled, and many more people will undoubtedly die as a consequence along the way. Yet for all those losses, it will be necessary for those who yearn for freedom to stand up and take their freedom back from the clutches of those who oppress them.

They did it in Tunisia. They did it in Egypt. They can do it anywhere the hunger for freedom is greater than the fear in their hearts.

As long as there are oppressed people who are willing to stand up and fight against dictators for their freedom and human rights, it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council, and namely the West and NATO forces, to do whatever they can, to see that these freedoms reach all people, all around the world, as soon as possible.

Top Ten Reasons Why Egypt will not be the next Iran

Pictured: Anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square, Friday, February 12, 2011.

10) Egypt does not want to lose its $1.5 Billion per year in foreign aid from the United States.
9) Egypt does not want to endanger the wellbeing of its own people, risking the recovery of $3.6 Billion from Mubarak assets held in Swiss coffers (or the $40 - $70 Billion suspected total of Mubarak's family assets).
8) Egypt wants to feed its own people. They will get the assistance they seek from allies, notably the United States, as long as they remain peaceful and on a path to institutionalized democracy.
7) Egypt can not afford to risk a conflict with its neighbors, especially Israel.
6) Egypt's revolutionaries used mostly peaceful tactics to remove Mubarak from power.
5) Egypt's people did not fight the army.
4) Egypt's army did not fight against the Egyptian people.
3) The revolutionaries did not march a religious leader to power by force. Aside from the religious factions, the only veils Egyptians like to see are the ones worn by belly dancers.
2) Egyptians are all demanding what everyone wants: Greater freedom, respect for human rights, peace and democracy. That, of course, includes uninterrupted Internet and Telecom services.

... and the number 1 reason why Egypt will not be the next Iran:

1) Egypt wishes to remain a Tourist hot spot. ($11 Billion in annual revenues can't be bad).

Mubarak will leave. Date TBD...