Stratfor's Reva Bhalla on Yesterday's Mumbai Bombings

Reva Bhalla is interviewed at the Dylan Ratigan show. She's Director of Analysis at Stratfor. It's good:

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "Relief and worry after slaying of Hamid Karzai's half brother."

Multiple Bombings Rock Mumbai!

There's a live blog at Telegraph UK, "Reports of at least 20 dead, over 100 injured."

And at New York Times, "3 Bomb Blasts Shake Central Mumbai":

MUMBAI, India — Three bomb blasts shook the city of Mumbai at the height of the evening rush hour on Wednesday, killing at least 20 people in what Indian officials called a coordinated terror attack on the country’s economic capital.

The explosions struck central locations in the city, including the crowded Dadar neighborhood; the Zaveri Bazaar, a well-known jewelry market; and near the Opera House, according to India’s Home Ministry, which said 113 people had been injured.

The attack was the first in Mumbai since militants from Pakistan mounted large-scale assaults on hotels, a train station and a Jewish community center in November 2008, killing more than 160 people.

No immediate claim of responsibility for the Wednesday bombings was reported. India’s home minister, P. Chidambaram, said at a news conference in New Delhi that terror investigation teams had been dispatched to the blast sites.

More at the link. Also, at Toronto's Globe and Mail, "Mumbai blasts a 'co-ordinated attack by terrorists': India's home minister."

Gunrunner Money in Obama's Stimulus Package

Instapundit has been all over this story.

And check this editorial at IBD, "The Stimulation of Murder."

RELATED: "Obama’s Watergate."

U.S. Builds Up Electronic Attack Arsenal

At LAT, "U.S. is using electronic warfare to attack in waves":

In the skies above Libya, the U.S. Navy has been deploying a small fleet of supersonic EA-18 Growler jets to "jam" Moammar Kadafi's ground radar, giving NATO fighters and bombers free rein to strike tanks, communication depots and other strategic targets.

It's the latest demonstration of "electronic attack" hardware — the "EA" in the Growler's name. Armies have been waging electronic warfare since World War II, but today's technology packs a strategic wallop unforeseen even a decade ago.

With foreign adversaries continuing to improve their radar capabilities and air defense networks, and terrorists worldwide using modern consumer electronics to trigger explosives, the United States is spending billions of dollars in a massive effort to respond. These jammers, for instance, spew radio waves and emit other electromagnetic noise to jumble enemy electronic signals.

"War fighters have gone from using physical weapons like spears and knives, to chemical weapons such as gunpowder and explosives, to electronics with radio waves and computer codes," said Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "It's a natural evolution in warfare."

At a time when the defense budget is being eyed for cuts, electronic attack technology is one of the few areas — along with drones and cyber security — in which President Obama wants to boost spending.

Continue reading.

'Saints Go Marching In': David Rieff at The National Interest

From the July/August issue:

AS WITH so many absolutist projects that make up in vehemence what they lack in nuance and realism, it should probably come as no surprise that R2P is a doctrine borne of a combination of institutional crises and guilt, conceived in the offices of then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the thirty-eighth floor of the UN in New York and largely fashioned in Ottawa at the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). For Annan, the global failure to respond effectively either to the war in Bosnia or to the Rwandan genocide was both a moral stain and a potentially grave threat to the legitimacy of the UN-based international system. Not unreasonably, he believed that one of the principal reasons for these devastating and tragic failures was the absence of any international consensus over how to reconcile respect for a nation’s sovereignty (on which the international system has been based, at least in theory, since the Peace of Westphalia) with the need for outside “humanitarian intervention.” That somewhat misleading term had been attached to various outside efforts at least since the UN went into Somalia in 1992. At times the armed missions were imbued with the goal of preventing states from systematically committing crimes against their own people—as had been the case with Belgrade’s rule in Kosovo; at others, with stepping in when governments were too weak to prevent such crimes from being committed—as had been the case in Sierra Leone when the Revolutionary United Front guerrillas came close to destroying that country. R2P, which began to take shape in 2000, was an attempt to remedy what had become an ad hoc interventionism.

Already in 1999, Annan had published “Two Concepts of Sovereignty,” an essay in which he argued that whether states liked it or not, globalization was transforming the substance of national sovereignty. The world simply was no longer prepared to stand by “when death and suffering are being inflicted on large numbers of people.” The needed interventions had to be based on what Annan called “legitimate and universal principles.” But these were still sorely lacking. In Kosovo, Annan wrote, a group of states had “intervened without seeking authority from the United Nations Security Council.” In Timor the council had authorized intervention but “only after obtaining an invitation from Indonesia.” And then there was Rwanda, where “the international community stands accused of doing too little, too late.”

The secretary-general could not act directly; too many member states, particularly among the G-77 countries of the developing world, would have been outraged. Instead, he wisely chose to approach the Canadian government to see if it would sponsor a study that could begin to develop an acceptable new norm. In early 2000, he asked David M. Malone, formerly Canada’s number two at the UN and at the time head of the International Peace Academy in New York, to convene a Canadian-funded private meeting of leading specialists in international legal affairs to see whether criteria for intervention (if only of a preventive nature) could be developed that would command a wide consensus among UN member states. But the group failed to reach agreement. It was after that failure that Malone, Lloyd Axworthy, then Canada’s foreign minister, and Robert Fowler and Paul Heinbecker, the outgoing and incoming Canadian permanent representatives to the UN, decided that Canada would take a more ambitious (and more public) approach, launching the ICISS, chaired by Gareth Evans and the distinguished Algerian diplomat Mohamed Sahnoun. The report they issued a year later was called The Responsibility to Protect. Its central theme was that “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe . . . but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.”

Go click on that top link and read it all. Rieff was once one of the foremost proponents of humanitarian intervention. Now he's apparently a coldly calculating realist determined to unmask the sick hypocrisies animating the international human rights community. He concludes with an excellent discussion of the Libyan intervention. Regime change really is the goal. And it's so funny that would a Republican president have backed it we'd be having Hitler parades across the world from Washington to London and beyond. But with a Democrat administration in power, the U.N.-based humanitarian intelligentsia can mask its neo-imperialism with smokescreens of good intentions. It's pretty mucked up.

Panetta Ties Iranian Weapons to Attacks on U.S. in Iraq

Well, it's not like this represents anything new. Even the Bush administration was caught off guard by Iranian influence in Iraq. The situation has changed. The threat's as substantial as ever.

At LAT, "Panetta: Iranian weapons used to attack Americans in Iraq":

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Sunday that weapons supplied by Iran are behind a rash of attacks against American forces in Iraq, part of an escalating campaign of violence ahead of the planned U.S. troop withdrawal by the end of the year.

"We're seeing more of those weapons going in from Iran, and they've really hurt us," said Panetta, who arrived in Baghdad on an unannounced visit after a two-day stop in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials said 15 U.S. troops were killed in June, the most in any month in two years. More than half of the deaths were caused by rockets known as Improvised Rocket Assisted Mortars that U.S. officials say are provided to Shiite militant groups by Iran.

A senior U.S. official said the attacks against U.S. forces were an effort by the Iranian-backed militias to make it appear as though they were forcing out American troops, all of whom are due to withdraw by the end of the year under a 2008 agreement between Washington and Baghdad.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other U.S. officials also have said publicly in recent days that Iran is behind the surge in violence against the 46,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq. The high-level effort by the Obama administration to blame Iran for the attacks comes as U.S. officials are stepping up the pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to resolve whether he will ask for some American troops to remain beyond the year-end deadline.

By playing up the Iranian threat, U.S. officials may be hoping to spur such a request from Iraq.

RTWT.

Amazing that an increase in casualties would spur the administration to prolong the deployment. Mr. President, you're ignoring your ASFL base. Duh.

The Future of Space

We need a space program. The end of the Space Shuttle Program makes us think about our priorities and world preponderance. America's not relinquishing scientific leaderships just yet, thank goodness.

There's an appraisal at New York Times, "3, 2, 1, and the Last Shuttle Leaves an Era Behind" (via Memeorandum).

Also at USA Today, "Shuttle ends 30-year run, but U.S. will be back":

Though shuttles will have launched 135 times with unique achievements — and two catastrophic failures that claimed the lives of 14 courageous astronauts and reminded a stunned nation of the price of pioneering — the program never did vastly expand the human presence in space.

But fret not. The end of the shuttle is not a signal that America is becoming less adventurous. It is simply the latest indication that technology advances in fits and starts, and rarely along the trajectories projected by the experts.

America will be back with a new manned space vehicle at some point. This may happen for political reasons if China, or some other nation, goads us into action by embarking on an ambitious program of its own. And it will happen for a variety of reasons when engineers overcome the one barrier that has frustrated them — the prohibitive costs of getting the first hundred miles or so off the Earth's surface.

In the meantime, let's step back and consider the extraordinary age that we have created ...

Atlantis Launches on Final Shuttle Mission (VIDEO)

Mashable has video, "Space Shuttle Atlantis Launch Video: The Final Flight."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Space shuttle Atlantis lifts off":

Despite earlier weather concerns, Atlantis is launched on the final flight for NASA's space shuttle program. It is the 33rd flight for Atlantis and the 135th shuttle mission overall.

Reporting from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

Atlantis lifted off Friday morning, shooting straight into a brightening sky on a 12-day mission that marks the end of the nation's three-decade space shuttle program.

There was a brief hold in the countdown at 31 seconds because of a glitch seemingly involving a piece of retractable equipment. As millions of onlookers on the ground and via television held their breaths, officials checked and reported that the equipment had, indeed, been moved.

With the last knot in the timeline unsnarled, the countdown resumed and the engines fired, sending the craft upward and out along the eastern coast of the United States.

When it returns, Atlantis will join Discovery and Endeavour as retired vessels. NASA will shift its mission to sending astronauts to asteroids and Mars while private companies take over the more mundane aspect of moving cargo and crews from Earth to orbit.

More at the link above. I'll post YouTube video later.

10:20am PST: Okay, from AP ...

Also, at Wired Science, "The Last Space Shuttle Launches Safely Into Orbit" (via Memeorandum).

Iran Sends Arms to Iraq, Afghanistan

At Wall Street Journal, "Iran Funnels New Weapons to Iraq and Afghanistan."

TEHRAN—Iran's elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has transferred lethal new munitions to its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent months, according to senior U.S. officials, in a bid to accelerate the U.S. withdrawals from these countries.

The Revolutionary Guard has smuggled rocket-assisted exploding projectiles to its militia allies in Iraq, weapons that have already resulted in the deaths of American troops, defense officials said. They said Iranians have also given long-range rockets to the Taliban in Afghanistan, increasing the insurgents' ability to hit U.S. and other coalition positions from a safer distance.

Such arms shipments would escalate the shadow competition for influence playing out between Tehran and Washington across the Middle East and North Africa, fueled by U.S. preparations to draw down forces from two wars and the political rebellions that are sweeping the region.

The U.S. is wrestling with the aftermath of uprisings against longtime Arab allies from Tunisia to Bahrain, and trying to leave behind stable, friendly governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran appears to be trying to gain political ground amid the turmoil and to make the U.S. withdrawals as quick and painful as possible.

More at the link.

This is classic international politics. I'm reminded of how the Soviet Union saw an improvement in the world correlation of forces after the American withdrawal from Vietnam. By the late-1970s the shift of influence and momentum in the Third World had shifted to Moscow. Iran can't operate on a global scale as the Soviets did, but most of the important developments in national security right now are in the Middle East and South Asia. And given how poorly the Obama administration has responded to current events, Egypt's revolution for example, and the political cut-and-run from Afghanistan, things aren't likely to improve a whole lot in the short term.

Ticketless Nigerian Exposes Holes in Air Security

Dude was a stowaway, avoiding arrest for five days.

At Los Angeles Times, "Another tear in the airport security net":

Virgin America Flight 415 from New York to Los Angeles was already two hours into its journey when some passengers in the upscale "Main Cabin Select" section complained that the man seated in 3E reeked of body odor.

A flight attendant asked Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi for his boarding pass and was surprised to see it was from a different fight and in someone else's name. She alerted authorities, and Noibi went back to sleep in his black leather airline seat. When the plane landed, authorities chose not to arrest Noibi, allowing him to leave the airport.

On Wednesday, Noibi was arrested trying to board a Delta flight out of Los Angeles. Once again, he had managed to pass undetected through security with an expired ticket issued in someone else's name. Authorities found at least 10 other boarding passes, none of which belonged to him. Law enforcement sources told The Times they suspect Noibi has used expired plane tickets to sneak on to flights in the past. On his website, Noibi describes himself as a "frequent traveler."

Now, federal authorities and Virgin America are trying to explain how the Nigerian American was able to get through layers of security — and then avoid arrest for five days after officials discovered he was a stowaway.

Aviation safety experts said they see several major breakdowns in security procedures. Transportation Security Administration and airline officials should have noticed the ticket was expired and not in Noibi's name when he boarded at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, they said. He was allowed onboard by showing his expired university ID card, even though college identification cards are not on the TSA's list of valid IDs and federal transportation sources said that it alone should not have been accepted.

Maybe TSA should spend more time checking African vagrants than 95-year-old travelers in Depends.

A New Constitutional Understanding of War Powers?

Bruce Kesler takes Charles Krauthammer to task, quite effectively, at Maggie's Farm, "Krauthammer Goes From Frying Pan to Fire, and Misses the Point."

The Implosion of Counterinsurgency

At the video is the fascinating exchange where General Petraeus endorses torture in the case of the ticking time bomb. Keith Olbermann, whose "Countdown" program has been resurrected, smeared Petraeus on this in a recent segment, with quotes from other top officials who essentially impugn the general's reputation.

More video from the testimony at Gateway Pundit, "American Hero General David Petraeus: “I Disagree With Barack Obama… I’m No Quitter”."

Yeah. A hero. Not to Keith Olbermann.

Anyway, on the implosion of counterinsurgency, see National Journal, "Washington Losing Patience with Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan."

John Nagl is the kind of guy who brings to mind F. Scott Fitzgerald’s wicked line in The Great Gatsby about people who succeed at such an early age that “everything afterward savors of anticlimax.” A star at West Point and a Rhodes scholar, the native Nebraskan was only 37 when he landed on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in January 2004. In that article, Nagl offered an inside-the-Sunni-Triangle tutorial on what he came to call “graduate-level war.” Nagl’s mantra: “We have to outthink the enemy, not just outfight him.” In an era when small but wily bands of nonuniformed insurgents could stymie America’s mighty military machine with stealthy guerrilla attacks and roadside bombs planted in the night, the U.S. had to figure out how to hunt down the bad guys and cut off their support from the local population. Nagl, after studying the British and French colonial experience, as well as America’s handling of the Vietnam War, helped to develop what has since become famous as U.S. “counterinsurgency doctrine,” or COIN. As his celebrity grew, Nagl proselytized about it everywhere, even on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.

By the late 2000s, the precocious Army major had become part of a brain trust around America’s uber-general, David Petraeus, the commander who implemented the Iraq troop surge. Commissioned by Petraeus, Nagl helped to author the official counterinsurgency manual that has since reoriented American military doctrine, shifting the center of gravity from rough-and-ready conventional war fighters to cerebral specialists in irregular warfare and targeted response. After retiring from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in early 2008—even though he seemed to be on the fast track to four-star fame—Nagl took over a little-known think tank, the Center for a New American Security, and turned it into what journalist Tara McKelvey called “counterinsurgency central in Washington.”

Brilliant and brash as ever at the advanced age of 45, Nagl delivers a sober endorsement of the military’s current COIN strategy in Afghanistan, which, because it was adapted from Iraq, is partly his brainchild. It is a strategy that many experts believe is not working—and the skeptics may now include President Obama himself. “I think any sane person would be disillusioned,” Nagl says over a lunch of mussels and mozzarella salad at Finemondo, a lushly decorated restaurant around the corner from his office. Even some of those around Petraeus (who is retiring from the military to run the CIA) are losing heart. But Nagl says that the Janus-faced core of COIN strategy—winning over the Afghan population with kindness, aid, and a multibillion-dollar policy to “clear, hold, and build” towns and villages while ruthlessly killing off insurgents—is just starting to succeed. He laments that the debate in Washington is dominated by critics who complain that the war is almost 10 years long and already more hopeless than Vietnam.

RTWT.

Yet another reason I'm unhappy with the president. Cut-and-run is one thing, but running when the tide is turning is another. George W. Bush refused to abandon Iraq, and that's when the consensus from all quarters was that the war was a "fiasco." We persevered in Iraq, and it's a stable emerging democracy today. In Afghanistan, I'm not confident we'll be able to say the same thing a fews years from now.

'The Crush at the Afghan Exits'

An editorial at the Wall Street Journal.

The NATO allies will follow Obama's move and cut-and-run from the deployment: "France to gradually pull troops from Afghanistan."

I noted previously that it's not the Afghans who're forcing us out. Domestic political calculations are driving policy, and I pray the region doesn't deteriorate into a million Mumbais, but that's asking a lot from the Man Upstairs.

Afghans Wary of U.S. Drawdown

At Los Angeles Times, "Afghans fear U.S. drawdown will allow Taliban to regroup":

Next month, Afghanistan is expected to assume security responsibility in two provinces, four provincial capitals and most of Kabul. One of those provincial capitals, Lashkar Gah in Helmand, has been the site of fierce fighting between coalition troops and Taliban insurgents. Even relatively quiet provinces like Bamian, also slated for a handoff to Afghan forces next month, recently have been hit by Taliban violence. This year, the beheaded corpse of the Bamian provincial council chief was found on a roadside.

[Hamid] Karzai welcomed Obama's speech, saying the drawdown announcement signaled the start of Afghanistan's self-determination.

"Every nation protects its own land, and Afghans can do it better," he said in a statement. "We have proved it over the course of history, and we are proud of that."

Nevertheless, Afghans say the drawdown probably will rekindle fear of a U.S. abandonment of the region akin to that of the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed and Washington no longer saw a need to nurture strong links with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Washington has said on numerous occasions that it will not make the same mistake, but Afghans remain unconvinced.

"America left us, and Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists," said Samad, a manager of a Kabul wedding hall who, like many Afghans, goes by one name.

Also at Agence France-Presse, "Withdrawal Symptoms: Afghans Anxious Over Obama’s Out of Afghanistan Plan."

I think it's a mistake, but Obama's on a political timetable, not a strategic one.

And ICYMI, see that Charles Lane essay at WaPo, "Obama’s Afghanistan exit."

Michele Bachmann: 'I Stand With Israel'

I saw this clip at Power Line yesterday, "BACHMANN ON ISRAEL." And following the links takes us to Atlas Shrugs, "MICHELE BACHMANN ON ISRAEL."

The greatest speech by an American leader on Israel. This is what America needs in the White House. Seriously, this is greatness. What a breath of fresh air and righteousness in Obama's current climate of hatred and jihad-enabling.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

And Blazing Cat Fur links to Caroline Glick, who writes:

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more pro-Israel speech by ANY American presidential candidate in my life.

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more cogent explanation of Israel's importance to the US by ANY American presidential candidate in my life.

And this speech came out of nowhere. She's not pandering for votes. No one asked her to say this. She just decided that she had to make a statement.

What a great woman. What a great leader. What a great American.

God bless you Michele Bachmann!

Presidential War Powers and Obama's Wars

Video c/o Reason.

This is a fascinating exchange. Gene Healy opens with a compelling argument, but comes off as more ideological. Michael Ramsey, speaking second, sounds more scholarly, and makes implicit reference to the political science consensus on the expansion of presidential power. Healy gives short shrift to the impact of the Cold War, and especially the concentration of power in the executive dealing with a U.S. response to nuclear danger. There are no more existential threats than those the U.S. faced from Soviet strategic weapons during the Cold War. Has the U.S. gone too far with the war on terror? Perhaps. It's worth noting that we're having the most robust discussions on the War Powers Resolution in decades under a Democratic administration. A needed discussion, in any case. If it were me, we wouldn't be in Libya and we'd be fighting to win in Afghanistan :

Two Men Arrested in Plot to Attack Military Recruiting Station in Seattle

At the Seattle Times, "Two men arrested in plot to attack Seattle military processing facility" (via PACNW Righty):

Two men have been arrested in Seattle in what federal agents say was a terrorist plot to attack a military recruit processing station in Seattle.

Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, also known as Joseph Anthony Davis, 33, of Seattle, and Walli Mujahidh, aka Frederick Dominque Jr., 32, of Los Angeles were arrested Wednesday and charged in a complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

Among the charges were conspiracy to murder U.S. officers, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and unlawful possession of firearms.

Both men appeared this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, who ordered them held pending a detention hearing next Wednesday. A preliminary hearing is set for July 7, which will be held only if the men are not indicted by a grand jury before then.

Both men face up to life in prison if convicted.

Okay, the system worked. Move along. Nothing to see here.

RELATED: At the DoJ, "Two Men Charged in Plot to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center" (via Memeorandum.)

Obama Declares Afghanistan Victory Before It's Been Achieved

At WSJ, "Unplugging the Afghan Surge":

President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals have been achieved. We half expected to see a "mission accomplished" banner somewhere in the background.

Not long ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about only a token drawdown this year, but he's now on his way out of the Pentagon. This time Mr. Obama overruled his military advisers and sided instead with Vice President Joe Biden and his political generals who have their eye on the mission of re-election. His real generals, the ones in the field, will now have to scramble to fulfill their counterinsurgency mission, if that is still possible.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. will start to remove troops next month, returning 10,000, or three or four brigades, by the end of the year. The entire 33,000-soldier Obama surge will be gone by next summer, and withdrawals will continue "at a steady pace" after that. So the full surge force will have been in Afghanistan for only a single fighting season, and even the remaining 68,000 troops are heading out. Mr. Obama reiterated NATO's previously agreed on date of 2014 for the full transfer of combat operations to Afghan forces, but that date now seems notional.

The President rightly pointed to the coalition progress against the Taliban in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, in building up an Afghan army and eliminating terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. But the military knows these gains are tentative, and it pressed the White House to keep all the fighting brigades in Afghanistan to press the advantage.

Still more at the top link.

It really is cut and run. And too bad too. Afghanistan was the one area I'd given Obama credit. I thought it weird for so long that folks like Pamela Geller and Diana West were calling for an American withdrawal. But they were right. The president's never been committed to strategic victory. It's all been political, depressingly so, considering so many people of good faith and morals who placed trust in this man, this president. He's betrayed a lot of people, and when Taliban and Al Qaeda violence escalates, the blood with be on his hands, and Joe Biden's. Losers.

Republican Party Splitting Over U.S. Role in Libya

I don't think Obama's Libyan war violates the War Powers Act, but unlike my fellow neocons, I'm more reserved in my support for the NATO campaign against Gaddafi. Recall Victor Davis Hanson's essay at the start of the war, "A Middle East Policy in Shambles." Completely ad hoc, and spineless too, it's hard to get excited about this, especially since Afghanistan (and Pakistan) remains the central danger point in U.S. international affairs.

Anyway, I think my concerns are not unfamiliar among the wider conservative establishment. Michele Bachmann, in particular, seemed to impart the sense that America's a bit overextended at the moment. See, LAT, "GOP splitting over U.S. role in Libya and Afghanistan":

Republicans are facing a widening fissure over the U.S. role on the world stage as party leaders decide whether to confront President Obama this week over his policy toward Libya.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other congressional Republican leaders have said that U.S. involvement in NATO's bombing campaign, which hit the 90-day mark Sunday, violates the War Powers Act. The House could seek to cut off money for the war as it takes up the annual Pentagon spending bill this week.

Several of the party's potential presidential candidates have called for the U.S. to quit the fight in Libya and questioned the depth of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Other Republicans have begun pushing back, criticizing what they see as a growing isolationist agenda within the party. The result is that Republicans, once relatively unified on foreign policy issues, now have a division that parallels the long-standing split in Democratic ranks.

The debate was on public display Sunday as two of the GOP's leading figures on defense and foreign policy, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, criticized Republican presidential hopefuls and congressional leaders who question the country's military intervention around the world.

"There has always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party," McCain said on ABC's "This Week," "but now it seems to have moved more center stage.... That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world."

Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that any debate over cutting funding for the Libya war would encourage resistance by Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi. "Congress should sort of shut up," he said.

McCain and Graham also criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's leading in the polls for the party's presidential nomination, for referring to the fighting in Afghanistan as a "war for independence" that the U.S. should leave to others.

"I wish that candidate Romney and all the others would sit down" with U.S. commanders "and understand how this counter-insurgency is working and succeeding," McCain said.

Romney was one of several presidential hopefuls who, in last week's Republican candidate debate, focused criticism on U.S. military operations in Libya and Afghanistan. None took the sort of hawkish positions that McCain advocated during his presidential run in 2008.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, questioned what U.S. interest is at stake in Libya. "We were not attacked," Bachmann said. "We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest."

Cloud Computing Vulnerable to Hackers

I love this idea of cloud computing, but it's not particularly safe.

Interesting piece at Los Angeles Times, "Hacker attacks show vulnerability of cloud computing":

As hackers continue their rampage against the world's largest banks, defense contractors and technology companies, executives and government officials are confronting a sobering truth: The bad guys are winning.

The seemingly unending string of high-profile attacks, most recently against Citigroup Inc. and Sony Corp., have shown that nearly every organization is vulnerable to a growing contingent of well-trained and agile attackers who are finding security holes faster than they can be plugged.

"It's gotten very dangerous out there," said Stan Stahl, a security consultant and president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Information Systems Security Assn. "There's an epidemic of this stuff going on right now."

The increase in high-profile attacks comes as companies are looking to move more of their business operations online, including to the "cloud," in which computing tasks are outsourced to firms that maintain huge data centers around the world.

Despite the cloud's potential for cost savings and reducing the hassles of running in-house computer servers, security analysts say it may not yet be as safe as advertised — a warning that many companies are taking seriously.

Alex Bermudez, the security manager for Beachbody, a Los Angeles company that makes the popular P90X workout videos, said that although his company is beefing up security as it expands overseas, he's held off on shifting operations into the cloud.

"There are a lot of good technology companies doing the cloud well," he said, but having his company's data stored remotely, alongside data from many other firms, "is a little scary."

More at the link.