The Islamic State (ISIL/ISIS): Religion, Recruiting, and Resistance

Video from VOX: "Syria's War: Who is Fighting and Why"
The recent attacks in Paris, France have thrust the Islamic State (ISIL/ISIS/IS) back into the spotlight. The topics of terrorism, the Syrian conflict, and the Islamic State are something I have both covered in great depth in recent years and have been focused on for a while. I have yet to coalesce all of my various works into a single readily accessible format, so here is my attempt. I have included relevant portions from each work, but I encourage you to read the full works in their entirety. I hope this will strengthen your understanding on the subject matter.

Lone Wolf Terrorism in a 'New Kind of War':

"The solitary nature of a lone-wolf terrorist attack is strategically problematic for law enforcement entities. When a group or cell conspires to plan a hostile terrorist act, the way to infiltrate and disrupt the plot is by finding the weakest link in the chain. Accomplishing this process becomes increasingly difficult as the network becomes smaller in size. Less people involved means less communication – if there is only a single person, possibly compromising communications are virtually eliminated. Lone wolf terrorism has emerged as the new face of violent terrorist attacks. The solitary nature of the attackers helps to isolate their plans from incursion by law enforcement or intelligence analysts. These attacks can be sudden, grievous, and often times happen without warning. Thus, finally figuring out how to preemptively combat this issue is of great importance."

[Excerpt from "U.S. Counterintelligence & Lone Wolf Terrorism: The Evolving Approach to Combat an Emerging Threat" written in 2012. Read more Here (PDF)]

Theological Justifications in Extremist Ideologies:

"The justifications used by extremist organizations will be exposed for what they are: nationalistic and not theological. The basis for their ideologies is an appeal to Islamic scripture. In order to illuminate the specific arguments or underlying themes, a survey of relevant scripture will  be included and scrutinized. [and ]As demonstrated, when examined in realist terms a la Pape’s CPOST Study, the explanation for martyrdom and resistance become separated from Islamic theology. If the West becomes educated on the multifaceted issue of suicide terrorism, they would see Islam is not some inherent threat. Yes, this – or any – religion can be co-opted,  but nothing makes Islamic theology inherently more deadly than Christianity or Judaism."

[Excerpt from "Martyrdom and the Afterlife in Islam: Analyzing Theological Justifications in Extremist Ideologies" written in 2013. Read more Here (html) or Here (PDF)]

Inside the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM):

"The U.S.’s tier one fighting force is known as United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The purpose of USSOCOM is to “Provide fully capable SpecialOperations Forces to defend the United States and its interests [and to] Synchronize planning of global operations against terrorist networks." After 9/11, U.S. Special Forces had to switch gears and operate within a radical new framework. What resulted from this shift was an overhaul of how military and intelligence agencies were structured. Interagency cooperation between civilian and military agencies was increased, while redundancies were reduced. With no allegiances to a flag or a state, the new enemy aligned with ideas and personalities. The global playing field switched from state actors to insurgencies, transnational revolutionaries, and civilian combatants."

[Excerpt from "USSOCOM: Firefights & Finances" written in 2012. Read more Here (html) or Here (PDF)]

The Responsibility to Protect and the Syrian Uprising:

"The Syrian regime has been unapologetic in every endeavor of the uprising. The man in power, Bashar al-Assad, is a strong-armed authoritarian dictator. His political ideology is rooted in the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. Over 40 years of brutal repression in Syria helped to shape the fervent anti-Assad sentiments in the conflict zones. Just as the tyranny increased, the denizens’ willingness to tolerate it decreased. With Russia continuing to threaten to veto any Security Council resolutions condemning the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, the realization that diplomacy is often a stall tactic is not hard to grasp. Any delay in the UN deliberations that Russia could help to facilitate via veto power prolonged the conflict in Syria. Russia’s long term interests in Syria were established prior to the uprising, but an analysis of the current scenario yields a chilling understanding. Since the Syrian government was utilizing regular military troops to conduct operations on civilian targets, the resources being used to execute these missions – small arms, tanks, and artillery -  were also Russian supplied. As it currently stands, the bloody struggle in Syria is ongoing despite multilateral ceasefire talks. Even though Syria has used and implemented the prototypical style of a mass atrocity military campaign, no external force has yet to intervene militarily or humanitarianly."

[Excerpt from "The Syrian Uprising: The Responsibility to Protect & The Failure of Conflict Cessation" written in 2012. Read more Here (PDF)]

Analyzing the History, Recruiting Techniques, and Social Media of the Islamic State:

"The Levant continues to be rife with conflict and destabilizing violence. The largest draw to the region is the enticement of Islamic State via their recruiting efforts through social media and video productions. Islamic State started with the migration of regional al-Qaeda affiliated foreign fighters arriving to fight in the Syrian Civil War. Islamic State has quite a sophisticated media production division and their social media efforts are just as relentless. Each video released by the Islamic State has its own unique message and substance while still adhering to a coherent message. The commonalities in recruiting efforts between the U.S. Armed Forces and the Islamic State are numerous. Coincidentally, the intent of recruiting in both organizations are also similar in nature on a main point: Islamic State’s campaign to recruit fighters to volunteer to leave their homes to fight on foreign soil mirrors the U.S. Armed Forces recruiting campaign to likewise find volunteers to leave their homes to fight on foreign soil. Just as there is a large emphasis on counterterrorism in America and the Global North, so too should there be a more active counter- propaganda agency to combat the spread of Islamic State ideology via soft power methods."

[Excerpt from "What Are We Fighting For? How Islamic State Uses United States Armed Forces Recruiting Methods to Mobilize Foreign Fighters in a Struggle for the New Caliphate" written in 2015. Read more Here (html) or Here (PDF)]

How Soft Power Policy Failed to 'Destroy or Degrade' the Islamic State:

"Although the military advance of IS across the Levant region have been nearly unimpeded, efforts have been launched to resolve the regional conflict outside the context of a military intervention. The UN has attempted to bring about conflict cessation through conflict mediators, regional forces such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have used a mix of military and non-lethal support, and grassroots efforts have been deployed on a local level. Nonviolent peacebuilding efforts implicitly rely on good faith measures from all  parties involved. Prior to IS seizing control, the Syrian regime was the sole coercive force in the Syrian regions. he use of soft power to combat the influence and advance of IS in Syria and Iraq has been met with increased barbarity and continued bloodshed. Relief efforts and non-lethal assistance has been delivered to the denizens of IS controlled territories in Syria and Iraq. However, the use of diplomacy, nonviolent peacebuilding, and humanitarian aid is a currency which IS refuses to trade in. While conflict cessation or the reduction of IS control cannot be achieved by soft power or nonviolent methods of peacebuilding, the key to a lasting calm beyond the reign of IS certainly lies in these approaches."

[Excerpt from "An Analysis of Promoting Peace in a Realist Conflict: Non-Violent Attempts to Destroy & Degrade the Islamic State (IS)" written in 2015. Read more Here (html) or Here (PDF)]

Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

"We'll Be Right Back..." (My Farewell to Jon Stewart)

"We'll be right back..."

Something one of my heroes has said during each and every episode of The Daily Show.

Tonight, as of 12:01pm EST on the 7th of August 2015, that assurance ceases to exist in its current familiar form.

The Daily Show will live on, as will Mr. Jon Stewart. In my list of the Top 5 people (who I have never met and were living at some point during my 24+ years) that have greatly influenced me artistically, creatively, and/or intellectually during my lifetime, Stewart joins the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Barack Obama, Casey Neistat, and Till Lindemann.

Jon Stewart was the narration to my political awakening when I was in the 8th grade during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. I had been watching Stewart for years prior, but without realization of the witty nuance of his commentary. The earliest indelible memory of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that I have - like many other fans - is that of the first post-9/11 episode. For the past month I have been watching The Daily Show's 'Month of Zen' web stream, which featured every episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from start 11 January 1999 to now, in marathon fashion without geographic restrictions. I have the live webstream on my MacBook Pro as I fall asleep at night and it is likewise there to greet me in the morning. My recent weeks' repertoire is a great departure from the distant nights at my Grandmother's remote Sauble Beach cottage adjusting a bunny-ear antenna on a television set many decades my senior just to have a luxury beyond just electricity.

Like other articles that have been written in the past few months since Stewart announced his retirement plans, now is where I start to create a playlist of assorted episodes... However, I will do no such thing. But only because I have already done so previously: TheNolanK - May 2012 & Mic - June 2012.

I could comment on how Jon Stewart has utilized The Daily Show format to transcend comedy and politics ascending to unparalleled and unprecedented status... However, I will do no such thing. But only because I have already done so previously - in print and online: Mic - April 2012,  TheNolanK - April 2012, OU Daily - May 2012, UWire - May 2012, & The Santa Clara - May 2012.

Instead, I will take relief in how I am parting ways with Jon Stewart. I subscribe to the old maxim that suggests "You should never meet your heroes". While I abide by that maxim, I do reserve the right to amend my position on heroes. In the case of Christopher Hitchens, my vicarious connection via exhaustive texts, Opinion Articles, YouTube Debates, and feature-length documentaries was ripped away from me due to Hitch's untimely defeat at the hands of the spectre of death. Speculation has already gripped the internet in regards to what Stewart's next move might be, with recent reports suggesting a return to stand-up comedy.

Stewart was never more damning than during his relentless (and necessarily crucial) critique of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War, the invasion of Iraq, the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished', and the subsequently poor handling of a destabilized Middle East. Even when Stewart let the sitting duck subjects of satire that were, and often still are, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have a pass for that week's egregious Iraqi errors, Stewart would focus his efforts on truly important issues such as healthcare efforts for Veterans Affairs and 9/11 First Responders.

The main line of contention that Stewart's critics had was that he would often depart from basic political satire into activist commentary while hiding behind the job title 'Comedian'. Other than the hilarious fact that it was often Fox News personalities that accused Stewart of poor journalistic standards, selling a biased narrative, or (more recently) representing a political entity, Stewart never backed down from a challenge, never used miscontextualization to make his point, and never ceased to be genuine. In fact, that is the justification that Stewart has offered for his retirement, citing that The Daily Show "doesn't deserve an even slightly restless host, and neither do you [the audience]".

"You coulda had all this!"

There is no conceivable way in which The Daily Show with Trevor Noah can even begin to replicate 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' and its 18 Emmys, 2 Peabodys, 1 Grammy, and numerous other awards, accolades, and accomplishments - nor should it. Just as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart blazed a trail in the American political dialectic, so too must The Daily Show with Trevor Noah forge its own destiny. Stephen Colbert did it and John Oliver continues to do it. Never has there been such bigger shoes to fill by a vastly smaller footprint.

From the bottom of my heart, truly and sincerely, I thank you for the amazing ride that was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - and may you enjoy retirement and enjoy the time with your family you so manifestly deserve.

-NK

Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

The 26th of June 2015: Today I Am Proud to be an American

My Oklahoma License Plate featuring Human Rights Campaign's Sticker (edited for personal privacy)

In all honesty I did not think that this type of progress was possible in the current political and social landscape present in the U.S. However, what I have witnessed in the US, in the past three days, has solidified my hope that positive change will happen in my lifetime. In the past three days, monumental change has taken place in America:

1) Two Days Ago: Southern States, that have have histories of violence and discrimination towards minorities, finally began recognizing the racist and hateful nature of the 'Confederate Battle Flag' and are working to remove that horrible symbol from state buildings, dismantle ill-conceived war memorials commemorating Southern traitors, and solidifying the social stigma that needs to be associated with that flag.  Without delving too deep into a history lesson, and ignoring the fact that the continuation of slavery was the second most emphasized cause for the South’s secession, I will briefly dispel the whole ‘the South was no more racist than American society of the time’ argument. The Confederate States of America (CSA), in its founding documents, clearly emphasized racist intent. Yes the USA had slavery, but it was defined as “Person(s) held to Service or Labour”. By contrast, in their new Constitution, the CSA used the term 'Negro Slaves' in Article IV. Section 3. The CSA made a clear distinction of highlighting the colour of the slaves’ skin - a definitively racist maneuver. The common refrain I heard growing up was “Heritage not Hate”. Even more absurd is when those who still uphold ‘Southern Heritage’ often claim that racism no longer exists since slavery and segregation are in the past. Yet the very past they are telling Black people to let go of is the exact same past some Southerners are clinging on to when displaying the Confederate Battle Flag or the Stars and Bars. While history is important to learn and should not be forgotten, in the case of the CSA, that Heritage is Hate.

2) Yesterday: The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as 'ObamaCare', which added to the long list of victories for that piece of legislation - including over 50 failed challenges to defund and/or repeal by the House of Representatives and a prior Supreme Court case that likewise upheld the law. Adding to these legal victories are the costs of the legislation coming in under budget, numerous success stories in patient coverage and care, and a drop in the number of uninsured Americans. In contrast to the intended policy outcomes from the legislation, a majority of Americans (55%) still disapprove of the law.

3) Today: In an historic day for the United States of America, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has found that state bans on marriage for homosexual couples are unconstitutional. Their ruling effectively legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states in the union. The 26th of June 2015 will be a date that lives forever in history. Those who have opposed equality for LGBTQ persons are now officially on the wrong side of history. I have been an avid supporter of marriage equality for my entire adult life:

"To deny a fellow human being the right to express their love for a fellow human being, in an adult and consenting fashion, just because they are a homosexual, is nothing short of hateful and vitriolic. Make no mistake, opposition to marriage equality is nothing short of hate, regardless of how you try and justify it. Opposing homosexuality may be part of your religious beliefs, but you have absolutely no right to make someone else submit to your beliefs in such an arbitrary manner." - Excerpt from my 2013 Article on Marriage Equality

What always baffled me was the fact that the Marriage Equality issue has nothing to do with individual churches or their procedures. The argument is just to extend equal protection under the law (See: 14th Amendment) to the LGBTQ community, for rights already enjoyed by straight couples.

(My girlfriend and I during our 2014 road trip to California)

Intolerance that arises from discrimination against someone for something they cannot themselves choose (i.e. Sex, Race, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation) is not the same as intolerance against those who discriminate by cognitive choice. Thus, based on a choice, bigots who justify discrimination by citing their religious beliefs or political platform are discriminating, by choice, against something for which a person cannot choose. Characteristics of a person that are indivisible from their DNA, and are not arrived at by choice, will always outweigh the characteristics that people elect to either hold or believe. Intolerance or discrimination against someone for an innate characteristic they have no choice or control over is inherently wrong and negative. Just as in the early to mid 20th century, when Government mandates against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or skin colour were issued, it was similarly the ultra-conservative right wing religious community clinging to "Religious Freedom" and "State's Rights" that served as the last bastion for discrimination and bigotry. It comes as no surprise that those opposing the rulings for love and equality today are largely the same ideological demographic that so opposed the rulings for race and gender equality all those years ago. Furthermore, there are largely no differences between today's arguments against marriage equality verses the arguments against non-whites and interracial marriages from the 1850's up to the late 20th century.

The idea of a Democracy Society is to not allow the majority to disenfranchise and discriminate against the innate characteristics of a minority. Enabling discrimination under the guise of 'Freedom of Religion' is not protection of the First Amendment but rather a thinly veiled attempt to enable homophobic bigots the ability to deny fellow decency and equal protection under the law towards homosexuals - and frankly anybody they deem to not be in accordance with their own interpretation of religious beliefs, including Muslims, atheists, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. However, intolerance towards those who discriminate against someone for characteristics they neither choose nor control is a positive social element. This form of social intolerance is the positive force that enabled women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, and equality based on sex, race, ethnicity, or disability - as well as today's victory for marriage equality.

Yes the U.S. still has its flaws, especially when compared to other developed nations, but this recent series of events has served to lessen that divide. Extreme income inequality and an exorbitant amount of intentional homicides still plagues the U.S. Issues like those still have yet to be adequately addressed. Make no mistake, the long march ahead for true equality remains an ominous challenge, but today, the 26th of June in the year 2015, love wins.

Closing Note: This amazing three day stretch follows President Barack Obama's interview on Marc Maron's WTF Podcast. At just over an hour long, I have already listened to the interview, in its entirety, multiple times. The news cycle picked up on one tiny element of the conversation, but the President gives a candid and very nuanced overview of the political landscape in the US. Click here to listen to Marc Maron's WTF Podcast with President Barack Obama


Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

Dinesh D'Souza Indicted For Campaign Financing Fraud

     Known adulterer and noted documentarian Dinesh D'Souza has been charged with campaign finance fraud. If his name sounds familiar, it is probably from his immensely popular documentary 2016: Obama's America, which grossed over 33 million dollars in its box office run.

     Conservatives and Tea Partiers alike have been crying foul at this indictment. They continue to criticize the IRS and are accusing the FBI of this being another political targeting scheme from the Obama administration. Considering the fact that a major Tea Party principle is either lowering or eliminating taxes, investigating these groups further to make sure they are not already following anti-tax policies before they are even legal sort of makes sense. Nevertheless, Obama's opponents are still quite disgruntled. The new wave of alarmist calls citing totalitarian tactics on behalf of the Obama administration are misplaced. What Dinesh is accused of is quite plainly a crime - and enough evidence was gathered to proceed with the prosecution. In this case, the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, was appointed by Obama. However, accusing the Obama administration of breaking rules in the name of cronyism, whilst absolving Dinesh by ignoring his connection to the former senatorial candidate, is a blatantly hypocritical double standard.

     In the (so far alleged) case of Mr. D'Souza, the investigation has a considerably more significant levels of justification. Here are the facts concerning the case and character of Dinesh D'Souza. He has been a staunch conservative, both religiously and politically. During the Reagan administration, Dinesh served as a policy advisor. An extremely vocal defender of traditional marriage, in October of 2012 he was exposed for having an extra-marital affair with a married woman. D'Souza tried to defend his actions, but regardless, they still eroded the sanctity of traditional marriage. In his defense, D'Souza did write an Op-Ed defending his actions, but ultimately the scandal cost him his job as President of The King's College in New York. D'Souza and the candidate in question, assumed to be Wendy Long, have a long history together. They both attended Dartmouth College and have been friends for a few decades now. Dinesh has been charged with (1) one count of causing false statements to be made and (1) one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others.

     Those charges stem from his alleged actions in Wendy Long's unsuccessful run to unseat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. At that time, the maximum total for campaign donations, per private person, was $5,000. While actively campaigning on behalf of Wendy Long, D'Souza donated around $20,000 to the election efforts. He was able to bypass the $5,000 limitation by claiming other people were the source of the extra $15,000. If he simply was acting as an aggregator for campaign financing, there would be no issue - but that is simply not the case. What Dinesh allegedly ended up doing was reimbursing the donors with his own personal funds. He participated in fraud, essentially in the form of money laundering 101: obscuring the source of monies, especially when in circumvention of a law. Knowing that the limit was $5,000, he was able to overcome that obstacle by way of shell donors. Dinesh's lawyer released a statement claiming that there was not "any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever ... at worst this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza." For a man that is so familiar with governmental policies and is often cited as a leading public intellectual, his alleged ignorance of the law has zero standing. Claiming innocence via ignorance once caught, in the case of marriage practices or campaign finance laws, illustrates a disturbing trend of willful disregard for the law.

DISCLAIMER: Since this is an ongoing case, these claims and accusations are predicated on the indictment and charges currently facing Mr. Dinesh D'Souza. As with all criminal cases, the accused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the context of this article's verbiage, this contingency must be considered and incorporated in reading this article.

Moore Tornado: What Happened? And How the Sooner State Plans to Move Forward

Moore is the seventh largest city in Oklahoma and is nestled between Oklahoma City and Norman along highway 35 - and is the home of Toby Keith. Heartbreak and devastation is all that remains of the severe weather that struck the town of Moore, Oklahoma. On Monday afternoon, Moore was hit by at least an EF-4 tornado that was estimated at over a mile wide. The National Weather Service in Norman has yet to officially classify the tornado and the Fujita scale rank is forthcoming. However, meteorologists have speculated that the extent of the damage and the data from the storm suggest that the tornado could easily be an EF-5+.

The Oklahoma Medical Examiner's Office has confirmed that the current death toll stands at over 91 dead - 20 of them children, from the Moore Elementary School tragedy. An estimated 233 people have been hospitalized in the area, but as search and rescue operations continued through the night and into the morning, those official numbers are likely to increase. Reports indicate that over 38,000 residents of Moore are without power and authorities are advising vigilance, because more wicked and severe weather is expected later in the week.

The fortitude of Moore was on display Monday night as the recovery efforts went into action even before the all-clear safety call was given. Any description of Moore or Norman, where I live, is typical of the small-town theme. Even our bigger cities like Oklahoma City and Tulsa still show signs of the classic southern hospitality. In a way, our the entirety of Oklahoma is like a small-town state. There will be an immense outpouring of love and support and no shortage of people yearning to help. This is just a testament to the resolve of this resilient city and the humanity of our state.

In 1999 the city of Moore was brought to its knees by the record setting force of an EF-4 tornado. Later in 2003 and more recently in 2010, Moore was also the stage for severe weather. In fact, as illustrated by the National Weather Service in Norman, Oklahoma, the preliminary data shows that the 1999 and 2013 tornadoes followed roughly the same route through Moore.

The background sound of ferocious winds and the ominous hum of the tornado siren are a frequent sound in much of Oklahoma. While many systems are tested on a weekly basis under fair weather conditions, nothing will make your hair stand on edge and your heart race faster than the sound of a tornado siren in Oklahoma.
A tornado is a powerful entity and the violent kinetic expression of atmospheric potential. There is no real secret to what a tornado is, but in the relatively new science of meteorology, the process of tornadogenesis is still the subject of mystery. In the case of Moore, here is the unbelievable footage of the birth of the barometric beast. This amateur footage was captured just south of Moore in Newcastle. The cyclone and rotating column are the very same ones that scarred much of Moore and pummeled central Oklahoma through the afternoon.

The video shows a massive force of nature. Not only is there a visible twister, but the entire atmospheric cluster is also rotating as well. This fairly rare phenomenon is what gave the tornado its unbridled power and fueled its eventual growth to over a mile in diameter. As a result of the swollen system, the overall speed of the system was greatly reduced causing the tornado to hover over an area much longer than a typical tornadic event.


The pictures emerging from Moore depict the leveling of entire neighborhoods or well-built strong homes. The prolonged and sustained brutalization by the tornado is what wiped entire neighborhoods off the face of the earth. In some cases, debris removal is actually not a major factor because the tornado simply took the rubble with it. There are reports that as far as Branson, Missouri, they are finding debris that originated in Moore, which is some 250+ miles away.

State and federal authorities were quick to action with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin receiving a phone call from President Barack Obama where he gave her his personal cell phone number in case she needed to get a hold of him at any time. The Department of Defense also put out a press release declaring that "200 members of the Oklahoma National Guard called up on state active duty to assist with search/rescue/security." Additionally, Mary Fallin also called in extra support from the Oklahoma State Troopers and the FEMA assets already in Oklahoma surveying the previous day's damage in Shawnee. As this is the worst Oklahoma has been hit in quite some time, President Barack Obama also declared that our state is a major disaster area.

Social media has also played an important role in the immediate recovery. A Facebook page called 'Moore Tornado Lost and Found' has been set up with the goal of reuniting people with their missing possessions and their missing loved ones. Volunteering efforts are also being bolstered by quick organization on Facebook. The Home Depot in Moore has been hosting able bodied volunteers and residents of Moore who needed help with clean up were just taking people home with them. This crowd-sourced effort was embraced by Home Depot and they provided snacks and refreshments to the volunteers, also indicating that they would continue this endeavor into Tuesday. On Twitter, keywords like #Oklahoma, #Tornado, and #PrayforOklahoma were the top trending tags in the U.S. and even briefly worldwide.

I myself plan to join the volunteer efforts, meeting up with some of my fellow University of Oklahoma classmates who have yet to leave for the summer to assist the town of Moore in any way we can. As a way to cap off the volunteering efforts, a good friend of mine and I are going to donate blood to the Oklahoma Blood Institute to help with their currently high demand for blood in the wake of the tornadoes.

Fortunately during the initial onslaught, I was safely at my parents' place in Tulsa. Undeterred by the impending weather, I took a break from live-tweeting the tornado outbreak, determined to make my dinner! But as I mentioned before, as a native Oklahoman and a life-long resident, I am no stranger to severe weather. While often times I clash with this state when it comes to politics, one thing is certain, my Oklahoman DNA runs deep.

For those interested in helping the recovery efforts in Oklahoma, here are some suggestions:

The Red Cross - The best way to assist families is to make a donation to www.redcross.org/okc or www.redcross.org or texting REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation.

The United Way of Central Oklahoma’s Disaster Relief Fund - Donations can be made online at www.unitedwayokc.org or by mail to United Way of Central Oklahoma, P.O. Box 837, Oklahoma City, OK 73101 with notation for 'May Tornado Relief.'

For my fellow Oklahomans reading this article, please stay safe and take cover if the weather demands it. And for those not in the Oklahoma area, here is my Oklahoman's guide to passing time during a Tornado. Follow me on twitter @TheNolanK and stay tuned for my photo-essay of the damage in Moore I will be assembling during my volunteer work!

Boston Marathon Bombing: UN, NATO & World Leaders Respond

Yesterday's tragedy at the Boston Massacre has been felt the world over. Support and condolences have poured in from America's friends and allies abroad. Yesterday, I offered my uplifting response in an open memo on PolicyMic. Twitter is on fire with support for Boston, with #BostonMarathon trending worldwide in yesterday's aftermath.

Here are the statements and reactions of various world leaders and international organizations.

UN Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon: "I condemn this senseless violence, which is all the more appalling for taking place at an event renowned for bringing people together from around the world in a spirit of sportsmanship and harmony. I would like to express my deepest condolences to the families of the victims, and to wish those wounded a speedy recovery. As more details emerge I am sure we will return to this with a more formal statement. But for now I just wanted to say that my thoughts are with everyone in Boston."

Anders Fogh-Rasmussen

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh-Rasmussen: "I am deeply shocked by the explosions at the Boston marathon. I express my heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were killed, and I wish a full recovery to those who were injured. My thoughts are with the people of Boston and all of the United States."

British Prime Minister, David Cameron: "The scenes from Boston are shocking and horrific - my thoughts are with all those who have been affected."

Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper: “I was shocked to learn of the explosions that occurred today during the running of the Boston Marathon. It is truly a sad day when an event as inspiring as the Boston Marathon is clouded by such senseless violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with those injured or affected by this horrible incident. We stand with our American neighbours in this difficult time.”

Julia Gillard

Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard: "Australians have awoken this morning to shocking and tragic scenes at the Boston Marathon. Our condolences go to the families of those killed and our thoughts are with those who have been injured. It will be some time before we know the full extent of what has occurred but these explosions have cast a long shadow over one of the world’s great sporting events."

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, via a Kremlin statement: "Vladimir Putin strongly condemned this barbaric crime and expressed his belief that the fight against terrorism requires the coordination of the global community’s efforts. The President of Russia stressed that the Russian Federation will be ready, if necessary, to assist in the US authorities’ investigation."

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu: "A day of joy became a day of terror, I send my condolences to President Barack Obama, the American people and the bereaved families. Today, like everyday, Israel stands shoulder to shoulder with the American people."

American President, Barack Obama, on the day of the marathon: “The American people will say a prayer for Boston tonight,” he said. “And Michelle and I send our deepest thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims in the wake of this senseless loss.”

American President, Barack Obama, this afternoon: "We continue to mobilize and deploy all appropriate law enforcement resources to protect our citizens, and to investigate and to respond to this attack. Obviously our first thoughts this morning are with the victims, their families, and the city of Boston. We know that two explosions gravely wounded dozens of Americans, and took the lives of others, including a 8-year-old boy. This was a heinous and cowardly act. And given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism. Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror. What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack, or why; whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual."

Even comedian Patton Oswald has garnered media attention for his response. On Facebook he posted an eloquent response, which has been shared nearly 250,000 times. Here is an excerpt: "I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, 'Well, I've had it with humanity.' But I was wrong. I don't know what's going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths. But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out."

As far as who is responsible for these cowardly attacks, no person(s) or group have yet to come forward. However, one of America's typical enemies have issued an official statement regarding the bombing, but they have denied any involvement.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, via spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan: "We believe in attacking US and its allies but we are not involved in this attack. We have no connection to this bombing but we will continue to target them wherever possible."

U.S. War Games Reveal Faults with Current Nuclear Recovery Strategy in North Korea

A recent war games scenario conducted by the U.S. Army War College has brought to light concerning shortcomings with the U.S.'s ability to recover nuclear weapons in a failed state. CNN's Jake Tapper recently reported on this startling development. The objective of the recent war game simulation was to neutralize or secure the nuclear arsenal of a country dubbed 'North Brownland' - a nick-name for North Korea. The characteristics North Brownland shared with North Korea are quite similar; a familial dictatorial authoritarian regime, proven WMD capability, bellicose and aggressive rhetoric, and the high potential to further deteriorate into an unstable failed state. However, it should be noted that other states share the traits and would also qualify as the intended target of this war game scenario, like the cases of Syria or Pakistan. [Click Here for the current list of Foreign Policy's Failed States]

The failures experienced by the U.S. in the war games scenario were not due to a lack of strategy, technological capability, or troop levels, but rather the inability to implement the current strategy for WMD recovery and wage a conventional war. To achieve mission success, the scenario yielded a conservative estimate of 90,000 troops over a period of 56 days. Paul McLeary, of Defense News, attended the analytic review of the war game. He summarized the issues discussed by Pentagon officials,

"They're very concerned about being able to get troops who can deal with nuclear and chemical weapons where they need them quickly. And the fact [is] that over the past ten or twelve years, they haven't really invested in that capability so much. They've invested in counterinsurgency, ground vehicles, IED threats, but they haven't really spent a lot of time and money modernizing their nuclear and chemical troops."

This realization is something that I have covered, in part, with the rise of USSOCOM. The switch from conventional warfare to counterinsurgency (COIN) operations was precipitated by two driving factors present in the conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in during the post-9/11 era. The first was a change in the nature of the opposition forces the U.S. faced. In 2007 during a speech at the Council on Foreign relations, General Michael Hayden stated that,

"The Soviet Union's most deadly forces - ICBMs, tank armies - they were actually relatively easy to find, but they were very hard to kill. Intelligence was important, don't get me wrong, but intelligence was overshadowed by the need for raw, shear fire power. Today the situation is reversed. We're now in an age in which our primary adversary is easy to kill, he's just very hard to find."

Gun Control Debate: My Thoughts Regarding Systemic Issues

Today I wrote an article for PolicyMic on the topic of shooting rampages in schools verses stabbing rampages. It was met with highly divisive opinions from both sides, hailed as an attempt at satire or something blatantly obvious. Yes, my matter-of-fact outline of why knives do not stack up against a gun in terms of an effective weapon is pseudo-Colbert, but my intent with writing the article was well intended. This is not an apology, nor is it back pedaling. It is just an explanation of my perspective as I see the world. Please read the article on PolicyMic and check out some of the comments, so that the context of my response below can be properly framed. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well obviously knives are not as deadly as guns. This is not supposed to be some major revelation. A gun is not just like any other weapon - firearms are something extraordinary. The Founding Fathers recognized this, hell, they gave firearms its own amendment - right after speech, religion, and press.

So when the media makes comparisons in terms of mass rampages, sure common features can be analyzed. But to jump and say rampages with knives are just as bad as rampages with a firearm; and therefore common sense measures in regards to gun control, like keeping guns away from the mentally unstable and to require universal background checks, are useless because knife attacks would still happen in lieu of mass shootings, well that is just BS. And this is a common claim from firearms advocates and detractors of gun control.

I have made numerous posts regarding gun control - on Facebook and here on my blog. I have done my research. But I've never really given insight as to my true feelings in regards to the issue of gun control. There's ignorance on both the right and the left, liberals and conservatives alike. I don't think that average Joe Public with no prior experience with firearms should be able to buy a Mk 48 LMG with no questions asked, just by virtue of being American. On the same note, a high capacity magazine is not a one time use item, nor is an "under-barrel rocket launcher" a real thing. I've consistently applied disclaimers to my gun control related posts, but they go ignored - perhaps in favor of vitriolic rhetoric, or a simple reaction from the headline.

It is safe to say that so far my ventures into the gun control debate are experimental and sociological in scope. I have approached it from a precarious perspective, but not from the position of policy prescription. Ultimately would I like the world and America to be a place where no one has the need to use a firearm against a fellow human being? Yes. Is that anywhere near the reality that we live in? No. Do statistics show that the proliferation of gun ownership contribute to a drop in violent crime? Yes. But do I think that the NRA pressures and holds hostage those in public office who want to try and implement positive reforms? Absolutely.

Simply claiming to enforce the laws on the books rings a bit hollow, because the apparatuses to enforce such laws are either ineffective or simply lack a confirmed director. (Yes, I am looking at you ATF). Access to mental health resources needs to be expanded. The underpinning issues of why people feel compelled to commit armed robbery or harm another human being have to be addressed as a matter of public health. Yes, this does mean the war on drugs does need to be reexamined with intense scrutiny. But to then say these types of reforms and new approaches should not also be applied or investigated when it comes to the issue of gun control is disingenuous. It is true that monocausal answers always fall because they fail to incorporate numerous important factors and variables. Likewise, excluding a major part of the issue also dooms progress when it comes to reducing gun violence and the proliferation of firearms into the arms of criminals. What we are doing now is not working. Something has to be done.

Thanks,
N.K.

An Interview with Dr. Joshua Landis: Syria, Assad, and Chemical Weapons

Recent news regarding the Syrian Uprising has once again caught the attention of global media outlets and international diplomats alike. The possible use of chemical weapons being reported in Syria is cause for great alarm. The U.S. has so far declared a firm stance of non-intervention, but with one exception - the use of chemical weapons in Syria. This game changing shift in tactics by the Assad regime is forcing U.S. foreign policy to confront the very real likelihood of intervening in Syria.

Dr. Joshua Landis of The University of Oklahoma

In the wake of these new developments, I contacted an expert on all-things Syria, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma Professor, Dr. Joshua Landis. His blog covering Syrian politics, 'Syria Comment' is widely read by officials in Washington, Europe and Syria. Dr. Landis travels frequently to Washington DC to consult with government agencies and speak at think tanks, like the Woodrow Wilson Institute, Brookings Institute, USIP, Middle East Institute, and Council on Foreign Relations.  He makes regular appearances  as an expert analyst on PBS News Hour, the Charlie Rose Show, al-Jazeera, Frontline, NPR, France 24 and BBC radio. Dr. Landis is frequently published in journals like Foreign Policy, Middle East Policy, and Time Magazine. (Information Courtesy of his OU Faculty Page)

As a current student at OU and an active member in the academic community in Norman, I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Landis on multiple occasions. I have sought his counsel on Middle East Politics - like the writing I did covering the  escalation of the Syrian Uprising in early 2012 and previously with my NATO Project. He graciously accepted my request for an interview on these recent developments as well as answering some general questions I had. In our discussion, Dr. Landis provided very illuminating commentary and insight.

U.S. President Barack Obama

What I drew from Dr. Landis is that President Barack Obama is cautiously dancing the U.S. intervention threshold with Bashar Al-Assad as his dance partner. Many thought that the Assad regime would crumble in rapid form, but such is far from the case. Clearly the Assad Regime is willing to burn Syria to the ground as long as the scorched result is still under its control.  So far Assad's strategy of brutal crackdown and responses has proven effective against a fractured and loosely affiliated opposition. Since the inclusion of the Al-Nusra Front in the conflict, rebel victories have begun to tally up and regime air-craft have become vulnerable. This is why Damascus started to use short range Scud ballistic missiles to strike resistance targets - they are considerably cheaper than a multi-million dollar aircraft. Seemingly without hesitation, Assad is prepared to further escalate the brute force being used in the conflict. But along the way President Obama has made forceful threats to Damascus that Assad has included into his calculus. The maneuvering by Assad aims to get as close to the American prohibitions of conduct, without actually crossing the red line.

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad

The Assad regime's recent chemical attack on rebel positions is evidence of this notion for two reasons. As Dr. Landis stated in our interview, "there is no agreed upon definition of how to define Chemical Weapons or what a real "use" is or how many need to be killed before the US intervenes," this ambiguity reflects the on the ground reality of the attack site. Intelligence reports are suggesting that it was not conventional chemical weapons, like poison gases or nerve agents, that were used, but more along the lines of a 'caustic weapon' which just used  chemical exposure, most likely to chlorine, to generate casualties in the affected area. [Link Here] So while Assad has certainly come into contact with President Obama's red line, with this witty maneuvering, he has yet to actually cross the line.

Dr. Landis and I agreed that it appears as if the American general public is either apprehensive or indifferent to the atrocities taking place in Syria. He equated this to "what one might call 'Middle East nation building fatigue'" and cited the report from last fall that "says 75,000 troops might be needed to seize Syria chemical arms." [Link Here] Dr. Landis said this was most likely a scare report meant to deter U.S. intervention. However, I see it as a realistic assessment by the Pentagon because it is better to go in over-prepared, than to go into a country and half-ass something as important and critical as chemical weapons recovery and neutralization. The estimate may be high, but this is more than likely an over estimation so that if this number is reduced, the Pentagon still has their desired sufficient troop commitment.

I concluded our interview with an inquiry regarding the future. I did not ask about the outcome of the raging battle taking place in Syria, but how history will look back on the inaction of the global community. Dr. Landis offered a quite poignant and pointed response, one which made me look at the Syrian Uprising from a slightly different perspective. His response was,

"This is certainly a failure of humans to sort out their affairs in a peaceful way. It is also a failure of world powers to solve the domestic problems of countries that slip into civil war. But it is important to remember that many countries have gone through civil wars on the road to nation building. The US did and American governments killed over 750,000 of their own people. Most Americans would probably say today that they are glad that Great Britain or other World Powers at the time did not intervene. In short, we don't know how Syrians will look back on this period in their history after 100 years."

Throughout this entire conflict, one thing certainly remains true: the following weeks, months, and possibly years are daunting for the people of Syria, with an estimated 80,000 already dead and millions estimated to be displaced.

Here is the full transcript from the interview:

Nolan Kraszkiewicz: Over a year ago, in January 2012, you quite rightly predicted that Bashar Al-Assad was likely to hold power well into 2013. Many who have covered the Syrian Uprising were either quick to claim Bashar al-Assad's fall was imminent or are somewhat surprised that he has managed to remain in power this far into the conflict. Why do you think so many were so quick to come such an erroneous conclusion?

Drones in America's Skies: The Policy for Targeting Americans

Amidst the hold up of President Barack Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA, John Brennan, in Congress, opposition Republicans are inquiring about the possibility of armed drones flying in American skies. This might seem like an Orwellian inquiry directed towards the Ministry of Peace, but the notion is not that distant from reality. An American, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, has already been killed by an armed CIA drone in Yemen. Also, UAV's have been authorized to fly over U.S. airspace. Currently, there have been zero missions involving armed CIA drones in the U.S. Regardless, here are the points needing to be addressed.

The Sanctioned Killing of an American Citizen:

Anwar Al-Aulaqi in Yemen (2008)

Anwar Al-Aulaqi was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1971. He was an American citizen from birthright, but did adopt Yemeni citizenship, becoming a dual citizen. He sought to bring destruction and terror to American soil via his involvement with Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP). He eventually became Al-Qaeda's recruiter, having proven contact with Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan and the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [Link Here]. The Obama administration has authorized the killings of numerous foreign terrorists, but this case specifically deals with an American citizen. The uproar surrounding this has not been in defense of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, but rather concern that a U.S. President, with just a quick signature, can authorize the summary execution of an American once they leave U.S. borders. This notion is entirely false.

Upon learning about the addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to CIA and JSOC kill lists without "charge, trial, or conviction," his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi sued Barack Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Robert Gates, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and Leon Panetta, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In effect, Nasser Al-Aulaqi's filing of this suit expedited the process by which an American may be targeted. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ultimately dismissed the charges, but the ruling to dismiss included a lengthy justification. On 30 September 2011, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was killed in Yemen by Hellfire missile fired by an Armed Reaper Drone. Interestingly, in Islam, 'Hellfire' is known as 'Jahannam' - a visceral image of hell - which Anwar Al-Aulaqi alluded to when making theological appeals for supporting Al-Qaeda. [Here is the full text for the court case]

The Drones in U.S. Airspace:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Drone

This topic has two separate aspects. The FAA allows private citizens are allowed to fly small unmanned drones in certain conditions. This policy has precipitated such recent events as a pilot of an Alitalia flight reporting the sighting of a drone in dangerous proximity to New York's JFK airport [Link Here]. The small 4 rotor craft was not a government drone. On a technical note, while UAV does stand for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the U.S. Government refers to its aircraft as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA).

As for military grade drones like the MQ-1B Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk, the policy is quite different. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency under the Department of Homeland Security, regularly uses 9 unarmed Predator drones for reconnaissance purposes along America's borders [Link Here]. The ethical questions enters the frame due to the lack of an active, hands on pilot, opting instead for a remote controller. Essentially, this is no different from conventional patrol aircraft, like helicopters - save for the fact that agents in conventional aircraft are generally armed.

Recent Developments:

Senator Rand Paul contacted both John Brennan, currently the 'Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism' as well as aforementioned nominee for director of the CIA, and Attorney General Eric Holder to inquire about "the President ha[ving] the power to authorize lethal force, such as drone strikes, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." Senator Paul published both of the responses he received. An analysis of the documents have yielded important insight into the domestic drone program. John Brennan referred Senator Paul's question regarding the President's power to the Department of Justice.

Canada's Continuing Commitment to NATO and ISAF

I wrote this analysis for a course I took called '9/11 and the War on Terror.' This policy memo served as our term paper, in lieu of a traditional final exam. Our assignment was to examine an aspect of the war in Afghanistan. I chose this topic because of my Canadian roots and my interest in NATO. Learn how early friendly fire incidents and experiencing the highest proportional rate of fatalities amongst active ISAF partners provided Canada’s policy makers with adequate justification for actually expressing the public’s will in regards to reducing military engagement. However, an analysis of public opinion, voting trends, and implemented policy clearly demonstrate Canada’s commitment to NATO and ISAF, even amidst the Afghan disengagement.

Executive Summary

The first Canadian casualties in the Afghanistan war were inflicted as a result of friendly fire. A U.S. F-16 fighter pilot bombed a staging area for a Canadian training exercise in a location known as the Tarnak Farms.[1] This incident happened just over six months into the Afghan war. By examining the background of this friendly fire incident, insight to the continued Canadian commitment can be gleaned. Furthermore, Canada has experienced the highest proportional rate of fatalities amongst active ISAF partners in Afghanistan.[2] Canadian policymakers proceeded to utilize this information when they reduced troop levels at a time when the U.S. was planning a troop surge.[3] This reality altered and shifted Canada’s role with ISAF in Afghanistan. Canada then began disengagement in Afghanistan and reverting to a support role in the ISAF mission.

Public opinion polls taken in Canada after the 9/11 attacks concerning U.S. – Canadian relations and of the war in Afghanistan under the Stephen Harper government will illustrate the opinion landscape. From there, government policies will be examined for mention or justification vis-à-vis public opinion. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have shared the world’s largest economic relationship. They also share the world’s largest border. Canada’s empathy for the 9/11 terrorist attack against the U.S. will also be represented in public opinion polls. So it seems as if Canada must continue to support their southern neighbors in endeavors of war as a way to bolster other more beneficial channels. The relationship Canada has with the U.S. appears to be one based upon ideological obligation, rather than one of true support. So it appears that friendly fire incidents, while not the U.S.’s intentions, and a higher rate of soldier deaths provide Canada’s policy makers with adequate justification for actually expressing the public’s will in regards to reducing military engagement. Similarly, voting patterns for the national government are indicative of the waning support for the war in Afghanistan. The elections in Canada in 2008 and 2006 will provide data as to how Canada voted in a post 9/11 political theater during the lead-up to the U.S. surge. The analysis and evaluation of public opinion, voting trends, and implemented policy clearly demonstrate Canada’s commitment to NATO and ISAF, even amidst the Afghan disengagement.

Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

            Canada is a founding signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty. As such, Canada is one of the most senior partners in the alliance, often taking on roles of leadership. After the September 11^th attack against the U.S. in 2001, by virtue of their NATO membership, Canada was thrust into the Afghan War. In response to the attack, the U.S. invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty which effectively made the attack on the U.S. an attack against all of NATO’s members. This is the first, and only, time this common defense article has been invoked. The response was assembled, but how the joint military force would manifest had yet to be established. It was not until late 2001 that the UN passed Security Council Resolution 1386, which “authorize[d], as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force.”[4] As the UN mentioned, the outline for the ISAF force was described in the Bonn Agreement and was charged with, “assist[ing] in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas” with the understanding that “such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.”[5]

            According to the Canadian Minister of Defence, the first Canadian personnel to arrive in Afghanistan was, “approximately 40 JTF2 (Joint Task Force) Operators on the ground in Afghanistan, in or around Kandahar.”[6] As the force build up in Afghanistan continued into 2002, Canada was fully compliant with ISAF military directives and they fought alongside their American and ISAF counter-parts. NATO assumed command of ISAF on August 11^th, 2003.[7] After the change in command, Canadian forces began their contribution to NATO, Operation Athena. Based in the capital, Kabul, and later expanding to Kandahar Province, Operation Athena focused on peace building exercises and civilian population interaction.[8]

Fratricide and Troop Casualty Rates

            During a Canadian only training exercise in April of 2002, Canadian forces would be dealt their single largest troop loss since the Korean War. The absolutely tragic nature of the Canadian loss was multiplied by the fact that it was “an American F-16 fighter jet [that] dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb” on the Tarnak farms training area. The devastating result was a total of 4 deaths and 8 injuries, marking the first loss of Canadian forces in the Afghan War. There was a major outcry from the Canadian public and outrage from government officials.  Once more details about the tragic friendly fire incident were revealed, the anger grew. There was even public criticism from the Canadian military that was directed at the U.S. forces. General Ray Henault, Canadian Chief of Staff, immediately stated that, “Without a doubt, there was a misidentification of the Canadians and what they were doing on the ground and that was obviously the cause of this accident.”[9] In response, President George W. Bush offered a public apology for the tragedy and commended and thanked the Canadian forces for their continued support.