Apparently accused Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad is ‘singing like a bird,’ to U.S. law enforcement officials, claiming he wanted to kill Americans in retaliation for drone attacks in Pakistan and because he hated George Bush.

But what if it’s all a ruse? What if he was just part of a dry run to figure out how to do a more serious attack later? And what if he was supposed to die in the blast, but chickened out at the last minute? What if he’s been making it up ever since?

Think about it – he claims to have gone to bomb school in Waziristan.

But we know that so far, those bomb school grads have all been suicide bombers. He’s nobody special — it’s unlikely his handlers would have given him an exemption. They would have considered him expendable.

That’s why there was no elaborate plan to get him away after he fled the van.

It appears it took Shahzad two days to figure out an escape plan – fly Emirates Air to Dubai, the major airline hub in the Middle East, and change planes for Pakistan. He made the reservation on the way to the airport, paid cash, used his own passport, and had no luggage. If he was supposed to survive the blast, he would have preplanned an escape route, complete with fake passport, and scrupulous avoidance of the one place they knew we’d look – international flights to the Middle East.

Why a dry run? To flush us out, to determine what surveillance we had in place – cameras, license plate readers, undercover cops. To see how difficult it would be for a van filled with explosives to get to Times Square and stay there long enough to detonate. To see what our response was – how would law enforcement react and the public would react. To see how easy it was for an American citizen to evade detection beforehand.

What have they learned? That an attack on Times Square would be comparatively easy. That the surveillance program in place in Lower Manhattan isn’t yet in place in Midtown Manhattan. That the only thing that stood between a foiled attack and a fireball in Times Square was a bungling bomber and an alert bystander. And that Americans, once again, got lucky.

And then there’s this question: are they sitting back in their caves in Waziristan taking odds on when America’s luck runs out?

Contrast this to President Obama, who also came into office facing a troubled economy. He is expanding government and increasing taxes; and unemployment is climbing. He begrudges America’s military superiority, which he acknowledges exists “whether we like it or not.” His efforts to extend “the hand of friendship” to the Iranian regime have been rebuffed. His attempts to enlist Chinese and Russian support to halt Iran’s nuclear program have so far met with failure. His take as America: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Which approach do you trust to keep America safe?

Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com’s DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 “Principles of War Speech” which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch “K.T.” and Mike Baker every Monday at 10 a.m. on FoxNews.com’s “DefCon3″ already one of the Web’s most watched national security programs
.

President Obama is in the middle of a frenzied fortnight of efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. First, there was the new Nuclear Posture Review, the administration’s effort to overturn America’s deterrence policy, which has kept the peace for 60 years, and replace it with a more limited plan that calls into question America’s nuclear umbrella over our allies.

Second, President Obama initialed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russian President Medvedev, which reduces nuclear arsenals of both countries.

Today begins Washington’s Nuclear Summit, where 47 nations will meet to discuss how get a handle on loose nuclear materials and keep them out of hands of terrorists.

And when the flurry of meetings is over we’re all supposed to feel safer. But we shouldn’t. Why? Because the president’s nuclear initiatives are akin to putting deadbolts on the front door, while leaving the back door wide open.

The biggest threat to world peace today isn’t Russia’s nuclear arsenal or America’s nuclear policy – it’s Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If allowed to go forward unchecked it will precipitate a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous, unstable part of the world — as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Emirates and others conclude they need nuclear weapons of their own.

Israeli leaders believe that if Iran gets nuclear weapons Israel’s days are numbered. If the U.S. fails to stop Iran, Israel could soon conclude it has no choice but to launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Most experts believe an Israeli-Iran war will quickly escalate into a regional conflict and could well draw in the U.S. So how is this making us safer?

The president has offered us hope that he can bring about a world free of nuclear weapons. But as long as his actions are more hype than hope, he’s lulling us into a false sense of security at a time when the world is on the verge of becoming a much more dangerous place.

When you cut through rhetoric on terrorism, the thing we care most about is whether President Obama’s policies are making us safer.

The Obama Administration believes that one of the terrorists greatest recruitment tools for the last eight years was the Bush Administration’s misguided approach – that they went overboard in fighting the war on terror, and gave a new generation of young Muslims a reason to enlist in holy jihad against Christians and Jews.

So President Obama reversed course – he’s courted the Muslim world and its leaders. He’s banished the word Muslim from any connection to terrorism.

The War on Terror? Erased from the Obama lexicon.

Terrorist incidents? They’re man-caused disasters.

Suicide bombers? They’re not soldiers in Al Qaeda’s army, they’re isolated radicals.

President Obama thought his program of outreach would de-radicalize the Muslim world, make them like us more, and attack us less. He’s had a year to try it.

But has it worked? Has it made us safer?

No. If anything, terrorists have been emboldened. We’re now up to a terrorist attack every three weeks.

By trying terrorists in civilian courts rather than the military tribunals, we’ve given them the right to remain silent. They don’t have to tell us about the terrorist network that trained them….Or other terrorists who might be on the way…. Or how they were recruited.

And we’re still focusing on weapons terrorists might use, instead of profiling for terrorists. Political correctness means we’re treating granny from Daytona, the same as a 20 year old from Yemen. By focusing on everybody – we’re focusing on nobody. And by looking only for weapons they’ve used before, we’re always one step behind. We’re still taking off our shoes eight years later – but terrorists have moved on to underwear. We’re still looking for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan – but they’ve moved on to Pakistan and Yemen and Cyberspace.

It’s time to declare the experiment a failure and reverse course – because the next terrorist attack could be successful.

President Obama must first clarify the mission: what does he want to accomplish in Afghanistan? So far, he’s talked about a number of missions — to defeat and destroy Al Queda and/or the Taliban, to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, and to buy time for the Afghans to build a national army and police force. These are all different missions, that require different — and sometimes conflicting — military strategies and resources.

Is our goal to destroy Al Queda? Well, Al Queda isn’t in Afghanistan anymore; we drove its ragtag remnant out in December 2001 when it decamped across the Tora Bora Mountains into the tribal regions of Pakistan.

Is our goal to prevent Al Queda from returning to Afghanistan? Yes, but can that be accomplished short of remaking Afghanistan? Do we really need 100,000 American troops and over $100 billion a year to keep a few thousand Al Queda from walking across the border? Should we continue to funnel our resources through a corrupt and incompetent President Karzai who, after eight years, is still more like the mayor of Kabul than the President of all Afghanistan? Or can we work directly with the powerful tribal chieftains and regional leaders? Would they be willing to guarantee that their areas remain Al Queda-free zones in exchange for generous payments? Afghanistan is a place where it’s often cheaper and more effective to buy friends than kill enemies.

Is our goal to destroy Al Queda worldwide? If so, isn’t that hampered by tying down the majority of our military assets in Afghanistan while Al Queda grows its footholds in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

How does Afghanistan fit into our wider national security goals? Our number one national security priority should be keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. To do that we, must destroy Al Queda, not just in Afghanistan, but worldwide. At a minimum, we must keep them away from nuclear weapons. Nation building, spreading democracy, and winning the hearts and minds of people throughout the world might be noble goals, but they do not necessarily help us destroy Al Queda.

Does Afghanistan actually distract us from this goal? While we focus our efforts on Afghanistan, Al Queda is now headquartered in nuclear-armed Pakistan, closely allied with the Pakistani Taliban, fighting a regional civil war and threatening to destabilize that government. Even if we ‘win’ in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s government falls, it’s just a few short steps before their nuclear arsenal is in the hands of terrorists.

Does adding troops in Afghanistan help Pakistan in its fight against the Taliban? Perhaps, but not necessarily. And, according to Pakistani leaders, the recent American decision to pull out of the Afghan border regions and consolidate forces in the cities does just the opposite. While American forces had provided a bulwark on the border, their departure gives the Taliban a back door escape route from the fighting in South Waziristan. So, even if the Pakistani Army defeats the Taliban in Waziristan, a remnant will no doubt migrate back into Afghanistan, thus starting the cycle all over again.

Is our ability to act decisively in crises around the world compromised if we’re tied down in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future? Gen. McChrystal’s report makes clear that even adding troops doesn’t guarantee ‘victory.’ What it does make clear is our commitment to Afghanistan will be expensive and long term. When I visited Afghanistan in May, everyone I interviewed — Afghan politicians, U.S. military officers, NATO commanders, NGO workers — spoke in terms of years, if not decades. What if crises develop with Iraq? Iran? Israel? Pakistan? Russia? The Persian Gulf? North Korea? China? Taiwan? Will we have the military capacity and economic resources to deal with them as well?

Unless President Obama can answer all these questions, merely throwing more troops at Afghanistan won’t work. And beginning Tuesday, Afghanistan becomes Obama’s war.

General McChrystal’s report on the Afghan War should be required reading for us all. It’s written in plain English and is brutally realistic in its assessment of the current situation. It makes clear that if we continue on the path we’re on, even with the additional 21,000 troops President Obama has already added, we’re headed for certain defeat.

Put simply, the General concludes that President Obama’s stated goal “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future” cannot be accomplished with the current troop levels, resources and military strategy.

Although McChrystal doesn’t ask for more troops in this report, he is expected to do so as early as today. He could ask for as many as 40,000 more troops, in addition to the 68,000 Obama has already committed to the Afghan war. While McChrystal warns that additional troops and resources alone will not guarantee success, it will at least give him the tools necessary to implement a new strategy.

Leaking the McChrystal report to the press, and to the county’s leading investigative reporter, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, was no accident. The military has now put the ball firmly in President Obama’s court. The McChrystal report leaves no room for ambiguity. If the president is not willing to add more troops, commit more resources, and adopt a different military strategy, he is going against the advice of his highly regarded, handpicked military commander. The inevitable defeat that would follow would be Obama’s to own – politically, strategically, militarily.

The question is what does Obama do with the ball now that he’s got it? As recently as last month President Obama called Afghanistan a “War of Necessity”, in contrast to President Bush’s “War of Choice” in Iraq. He can hardly walk away from the war now.

But accepting McChrystal’s recommendations and ramping up our war efforts will be difficult as well. To do so President Obama faces an uphill battle persuading the American people that this war is worth the effort, and convincing his anti-war political base to go along with it.

If Obama decides to not decide– in other words to delay or refuse to commit the resources McChrysal has called essential– what will Gen. McChrystal, his boss Gen. Petraeus, and Secretary of Defense Gates do? Will they resign in protest, or hold their noses and carry out a policy they know is doomed to fail?

After the Vietnam war fiasco, many of our junior military officers said “never again.” Never again would they stand silently by and fight a war they knew would end in disaster. Yet that lesson was forgotten in the aftermath of September 11. Once again, our political leaders were unwilling to commit the troops or resources needed to bring a quick conclusion to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and once again our senior military leadership went along with it. The one military leader who had the courage to call for more troops, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, was fired by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for saying so. The message was clear.

For now, the battle lines are being drawn in Washington. A fundamental principle in our Constitution is civilian control of the military. That means our political leaders set the policy and our military leaders recommend to them what resources they need to carry them out. If our military leaders disagree, they have two options– carry the orders out in silence, or resign in protest.

In the next few days we will learn whether President Obama has the courage to do what what is necessary to prevail in Afghanistan. And he does not, will our military leaders have the courage to resign in protest?

Transcript:

This is DEFCON 3 by KT and I’m KT McFarland

President Obama just cancelled the missile shield we had promised to Poland and the Czech Republic -  but it’s not clear what, if anything, he got in exchange.

The missile shield would have put American military personnel in Russia’s backyard, in countries that were recently part of the Russian empire, and which Russia would like to control again.  The thought of it drove them nuts. They should have paid dearly to get it dropped, like cooperating with us to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Only time will tell whether there was a quid pro quo, but there are three things we should watch for in the next few weeks:

-will russia delay or halt delivery of the state-of-the-art air defense system it’s promised Iran? Israeli PM Netanyahu went to Moscow recently to plead with the Russias to stop its delivery. Once  Iran gets the S-300 system, an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites would be nearly impossible.

-Will russia join with us in a gasoline embargo on Iran? Iran imports 40% of its gasoline – an embargo would force them to the negotiating table, quickly, and ready to make a deal. If Russia blocks an embargo at the UN, or cheats on it were it passed, it would take all the teeth out.

-Will russia stop helping Iran’s nuclear enrichment program? Without Russian assistance, it will be more difficult and take longer for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

If President Obama got one or more of these concessions, cancelling the missile shield might have made sense, especially if we retain the right to have  a ship based system.  But if he’s cancelled it without extracting one or more of these from Russia, hoping instead that the goodwill gesture would convince the Russians to come to our assistance, then he just got snookered and we’re moving closer a world where the Mad Mullahs have the Bomb.

That’s DEFCON 3 by KT and I’m KT McFarland

What’s our end game in Afghanistan? Will the president opt for a “slow bleed” in the region and ignore the need to increase troop levels?

When I was in Afghanistan earlier this year it was clear we didn’t have enough troops to do anything more than tread water. Things have only gotten worse.

President Obama is offering up a muddled message about what he wants to accomplish there– before he decides what the troop levels should be, he has to decide what his goal is. Is it to win hearts and minds? Defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Does he want to buy time so that the Afghan army can take charge?

And once he’s got a clear mission in mind, he’s got to decide whether to increase troops. Should the U.S. pull out? Or will the president continue to “do a Rumsfeld” on Afghan– ignore military requests for more troops so that we have just enough troops to prevent defeat but NOT enough to prevail in any of these missions listed above.

Strategically, President Obama can’t pull out of the region, after all Afghanistan is the good war, but he also can’t really add additional troops (because the left will go nuts) so he’s likely to have opt for a slow bleed which is worst option of all in the long run.

American troops have begun the first phase of withdrawing from Iraq and, under the US-Iraqi status of forces agreement, will be completely out by the end of 2011.

The Iraq War has been one giant roller coaster ride. We executed a brilliant invasion and toppled their brutal dictator in a matter of days. Saddam Hussein was hunted down, tried and hanged. Yet no sooner had President Bush declared, “mission accomplished” than the insurgency began. Our occupation turned into a disaster of mismanagement, and large sections of the country succumbed to Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Al Qaeda gained a foothold and looked to make Iraq the base for operations throughout the Middle East.

In spite of calls for immediate withdrawal, President Bush doubled down with the Surge… replaced our military leaders… increased our troop strength… and changed the rules of engagement. It was a huge gamble, but it led to one of the greatest turnarounds in recent military history.

As a result, we’re now leaving Iraq with our heads held high, not with our tail between our legs. We’re leaving behind an Iraqi government that, despite all its shortcomings, has a decent chance of success. We’re turning security over to an Iraqi army that is multi-ethnic and finally able to stand on its own.

Enormous problems remain in Iraq, but they will be for Iraqis to solve. They still have to sort out who gets what of their oil wealth. They have to share power between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. They have to maintain order and prevent insurgencies from sprouting up and foreign fighters from entering. They have to hold their neighbors at bay. Only time will tell if the Iraqis succeed, but at least now they have a chance – and a good one – to become the first self-sustaining democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

The war against radical Islam is far from over, but an essential battle has just been won. The roller coaster tide may not be finished for Iraq – but we’re getting off the train.