Daily news sites

LONDON--In the fall of 2012, aboard a retired aircraft carrier permanently docked on the west side of Manhattan, I listened as then-United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, delivered one of the most chilling speeches I have ever heard. To a roomful of leading CEOs and military leaders, Panetta spoke about the new cyber threats faced by civilized society and the many ways in which America's adversaries could use computer networks to spread panic, paralyze the country and inflict mass casualties.

"Let me explain how this could unfold," he said. "An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches. They could, for example, derail passenger trains or even more dangerous, trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country."

"The most destructive scenarios," he continued, "involve cyber actors launching several attacks on our critical infrastructure at one time, in combination with a physical attack on our country . . . The collective result of these kinds of attacks could be a cyber Pearl Harbor; an attack that would cause physical destruction and loss of life. In fact, it would paralyze and shock the nation and create a new, profound sense of vulnerability."

Those words echoed again for me with today's news that a mammoth breach of data occurred last month at America's second-largest health insurer, Anthem. The attack, which authorities have linked to Chinese hackers, reportedly pilfered the birthdays, Social Security numbers, email addresses and home addresses of 80 million customers and employees. This comes on the heels of a series of cybercrimes that have recently ricocheted through headlines - from the vicious attack that sought to destroy Sony's computer network to the more benign hacking of the YouTube and Twitter accounts of the U.S Central Command by somebody claiming links to the Islamic State.

While Panetta's fears have thankfully not yet been realized, it's time to acknowledge that cyberwar is a greater threat to the U.S. today than more traditional forms of terrorism. If the first 15 years of the 21st Century were defined by the so-called Axis of Evil--the phrase George W. Bush applied to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in the days after 9/11 for their support of terrorists--the next 15 years will likely be defined by the Access of Evil, as state and non-state cyberterrorists use technology to bypass our defenses in ways that damage businesses, lives, and nations.

There is little question about the charter members of this club. As Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, recently put it, "Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are increasingly hacking into U.S. companies and government networks for espionage purposes or financial gain."

So, what does this Access of Evil look like?

Russia has been tied to state-sponsored cyber-attacks as far back as 2007, when Kremlin-linked hackers disabled the government websites of Georgia and Estonia. Last fall, Western governments accused Moscow of sponsoring cyber-attacks that sought to infiltrate the White House, the German government, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Ukrainian government, telecom companies and universities. More troubling were reports that Russia, angry over Western sanctions for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, had gained access to some of the industrial-control software that drives part of America's critical national infrastructure. For good measure, last July's cyber-attack on J.P. Morgan--which saw hackers steal personal information from 83 million account-holders--was also traced back to Russia.

China is strongly believed to have funded a program starting in 2006 (dubbed Operation Shady Rat) that saw its hackers steal information from more than 70 national governments, global corporations and nonprofit organizations. In 2012, the Pentagon accused China of attacking U.S. government computers to extract sensitive information. Last May, a U.S. grand jury indicted five hackers associated with the Chinese military for stealing information from six American companies in the nuclear and solar power industries and passing it along to competitors in China. Today's Anthem news is just more of the same.

Meanwhile, North Korea has reportedly carried out six major cyber attacks on South Korea since 2009, costing that nation nearly $1 billion. Warning bells were raised last September when Hewlett-Packard issued a cyber threat report alleging that Pyongyang was significantly expanding its cyber warfare capabilities. Those fears were realized in December, when both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security linked the attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment back to Pyongyang. Further stoking fears, last month, Seoul alleged that Kim's hacker army was now 6,000 strong and planning new digital mayhem.

Iran, by contrast, was first associated with cybercrime as a victim. In 2012, Iran's nuclear program was the target of a massive cyber-attack -allegedly spearheaded by Israel and the U.S. - that infected the software running hundreds of centrifuges as they spun uranium into nuclear material, causing them to lose control and fail. Iran reportedly retaliated by backing a massive attack that disabled three-quarters of the computers at Saudi Arabia's national oil company. By early 2013, having invested billions to improve its online arsenal, Iran declared itself the "fourth biggest cyber power among the world's cyber armies." A remarkably sophisticated Iran-linked attack on the websites of major U.S. banks, combined with the news that Iran had successfully infiltrated the U.S. Navy's network, raised alarm bells and led the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute to declare that "Iran as a cyber power is the elephant in the room that everyone is finally beginning to notice."

And this is just the start--according to intelligence reports, more than 140 countries have some kind of cyber weapon development program. For small nations in particular like North Korea, which has just 24 million people, cyber warfare is the great equalizer, enabling them to take on larger nations and wreak havoc in ways that aren't possible with conventional warfare.

Of course, with the leak of thousands of classified documents by former U.S. government contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 and their revelations of secretive global surveillance programs run by the U.S. National Security Agency, every member of the Access of Evil has charged the U.S. government with hypocrisy. That's understandable. But I'd argue that there is a world of difference between using technology as a cyber ear--to monitor global networks in order to root out terrorist cells and advance global security--and using it as a cyber weapon to steal, disrupt and destroy the hard work of others for one's own benefit.

Thus far, the damage of this ongoing cyberwar has been largely commercial, costing the world economy an estimated $575 billion a year. Last year, a range of U.S. companies--from Target to Home Depot to EBay--were added to a list of more than 75 American corporations that have suffered attacks resulting in a million records or more being compromised or publicly disclosed. We now have a decade's worth of stories like the one recounted in Fortune last fall, of an American biomedical company that went through a five-year process to introduce a new innovation to market--only to see a Chinese competitor infiltrate its mainframe, steal its design, and rush the same exact product to market in less than half the time.

While we have been spared the kinds of attacks that Panetta spoke about, a leading expert on cybersecurity warned The Times of London that such attacks are "very close." And the worst part, said Eugene Kaspersky, who advises organizations ranging from Interpol to the British government, is that "States are scared. They're absolutely not ready for this challenge (and) they don't yet have the strategy in place" to stop attacks on national infrastructures. Indeed, numerous organizations have warned that the U.S. electrical power grid in particular is nearly defenseless against cyber attacks. With extremist organizations like ISIS already using social media in sophisticated ways to attract recruits, cyberwar could be the next battlefield.

For 40 years, Americans have asked: what is the next moonshot? What big, audacious goal could this generation set that is as grandly ambitious as President John F. Kennedy's 1961 challenge that America should land on the moon within a decade? I think it is this: to bring together our best public and private minds, our best companies and not-for-profit organizations, our best innovators and entrepreneurs, and find a way to ensure that the technology lifting our economy and our world to new heights today doesn't also become the means and tools of our destruction.

I've lived through one Pearl Harbor in my lifetime. We can't afford another one.

Stanley Weiss, a global mining executive and founder of Washington-based Business Executives for National Security, has been widely published on domestic and international issues for three decades.

There are ideas and calls in the US arena for stronger, firmer, and more decisive measures to implement the policy declared by US President Barack Obama to eliminate ISIS, as part of a comprehensive and calculated strategy away from arbitrariness and hesitation. Many high-level military officials who previously served in senior posts have started talking publicly about the "failure" of the United States to defeat al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other radical Islamists because of the policies and decisions of the executive branch, particularly under Obama. Some are talking about the need for an Arab version of NATO, stressing the crucial importance of an actual US partnership with such an alliance, as this would serve the US interest. Otherwise -- as one such military voice cautioned -- the threat of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and radical Islamists is coming to the US homeland. John McCain, Republican senator and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, says eliminating ISIS is contingent upon the Obama administration adopting a clear position against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian allies. He says that in the short term, there is no other option but to create no-fly zones in Syria while significantly stepping up air strikes with the participation of special forces on the ground, which would bolster those fighting ISIS and the regime in Damascus. In the long run, McCain believes it is necessary to create an Arab force in Syria and Iraq with broad US participation in the air and limited participation on the ground, with the goal of supporting the Arab force. He explains that any Iranian participation in the war on ISIS in Syria is unacceptable because of what he calls the unholy alliance between Iran and Syria, saying that any US consent of this would be immoral. But what is absent from the US discourse on how to defeat ISIS is the need for a quasi-preemptive strategy in Yemen and Libya, which are becoming a fertile ground for the growth of Islamic radicalism in all forms. What is present so far is the continued reluctance to lead in earnest, not only because of the attitudes, personality, and thinking of President Obama, but also because of the inherent inconsistency in the US public opinion and character.

The Arab public opinion is no less inconsistent or lazy than the US and European public opinion, albeit it is sharper. The whole world has now seen the appalling yet calculated barbarism in the high quality, high definition video footage of ISIS's immolation of the captured young Jordanian pilot Moath al-Kasasbeh. Jordan and the Arab and Muslim countries are riding a wave of anger and outrage at the horrific crime and the baseness of ISIS, which poses an existential threat to the Arab nations.

But it is not enough to be angry. The Arab and Muslim worlds must rise up against ISIS. Those who consider the group a natural response to Iranian encroachment in the Arab region and those who see ISIS as an instrument of responding to Shiite exclusion of Sunnis in Iraq must desist. Otherwise, this will only be an investment in burning the Arab spirit and Islamic principles.

The above requires regional and international policies that would accompany it in order for it to succeed or even happen. In this context, it is vital to repair the US-led international anti-ISIS coalition, where Obama must stop avoiding international decisions, gaffes, hesitation, and shirking what the circumstances require him to do.

President Obama said the barbaric execution would "redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they [ISIS] are degraded and ultimately defeated." But one question is this: How will the US president translate this pledge into action as the leader of the coalition? The poles of the coalition are reproachful of Obama because of his political attitudes that are averse to clarity and devoid of strategy, such as by insisting on the need for Bashar al-Assad to step down without having a roadmap or practical preparations for implementing this. They are also reproachful because of the lack of US military preparations in the framework of the coalition.

The UAE suspended its air operations against ISIS, urging the United States to provide better protection for pilots in the event their planes are downed by moving US search and rescue equipment from Kuwait to northern Iraq. The UAE is right to do so.

Jordan will need more and more after King Abdullah II ordered the death sentences against Sajida Rishawi to be implemented. ISIS had demanded Rishawi's release in return for the pilot Kasasbeh, at a time when it had already burned him alive a month ago.

In the beginning, some Jordanian tribes, when Jordan declared its intention to do a prisoner swap, called publicly for Jordan to withdraw from the international anti-ISIS coalition saying this was not Jordan's war. After the video was posted, the Jordanian tribes including that of Kasasbeh's father began calling for revenge and supported the decision of King Abdullah to expedite the death sentences involving convicted jihadists and to remain in the coalition.

It is likely that ISIS would step up its revenge and escalate against Jordan. For its part, Jordan will likely resume its air sorties as part of the coalition's air campaign against ISIS, after having suspended its operations following the capture of the Jordanian pilot. This will require the members of the coalition, especially the United States, to implement practical and advances measures to protect Jordan. Here, Japan may be the first country to step up support for Jordan, after ISIS executed a Japanese journalist. ISIS had linked his release to the release of Sajida Rishawi, a demand Jordan agreed to but in return for the release of both the Japanese and Jordanian hostage and demanded proof of life. The deal was unsuccessful.

It is therefore expected that a serious and comprehensive review of the work of the international coalition would take place, in the aftermath of the beheadings and immolation exhibited by ISIS this week. It is now clear that air strikes alone will not bring about the full defeat of ISIS, and that there is no alternative to a clearer and broader political and military strategy in the air and on the ground.

The Arab and international popular climate is now more open to more stringent measures to stop the horrendous crimes perpetrated by ISIS, which has moved from beheading to burning people alive. This is a deliberate escalation by ISIS meant to invite denunciation while attracting volunteers for its ranks, and to provoke the United States into broader participation in the war against it possibly. This would be especially the case if ISIS decides to kill the American woman it holds hostage, and indeed, the execution of a young American woman in her 20s would have a huge impact on US decision makers and the nature of US measures.

The beheading of the Japanese journalist and immolation of the Jordanian pilot constitute the most blatant challenge for the members of the coalition and the American political and military diffidence. The talk being circulated about a response is not limited to escalating the military operations of the coalition, but also includes prospects for possible -- or impossible -- accords between the United States and Russia on the Syrian arena. It also includes the Iranian regional and nuclear dimension in the US calculations, bearing in mind that Iran is playing a direct military role in Syria alongside the regime to keep Assad in power, while the regime in Damascus is marketing itself as a natural ally for the coalition in its bid to defeat ISIS.

From the Arab side, the members of the coalition, the Gulf countries and Jordan, in addition to Egypt, are in remarkable accord and have important joint positions. This could form a nucleus for that "Arab force" that has to be considered as a serious option sooner or later.

On the international level, the equation between the United States and Russia has returned to regional and international considerations. On the surface at least, fighting ISIS in Syria seems to be something both the United States and Russia agree on, as both countries consider the organization their enemy. As for the necessary measures in the broader strategy that requires abandoning Bashar al-Assad to mobilize an upsurge against ISIS, these are hitting the wall of the American-Russian relationship and the requirements of accord between them.

The question today is what does Russia, which is in a standoff with the West in Ukraine, want? Russia has accused the United States and Saudi Arabia of "starving" the Russian people by driving oil prices down. What are the demands of President Vladimir Putin, who is well aware of the risk ISIS poses to him on his home soil and immediate vicinity? Is he ready to adapt with what is needed in Syria in relation to Assad's fate, to allow the international coalition to defeat ISIS? Or is he still insisting on clinging to the Syrian president under any circumstances and at any price?

What is the price Vladimir Putin wants? Accords and trade-offs? Or are his goals strictly confined to strategic and nationalistic calculations? Meanwhile, will oil prices and their damaging effect on Russia force it to reconsider and seek different kinds of negotiations and trade-offs?

This will depend on the extent of the existential threat felt by Russia. So far, the United States, Russia, and the European countries do not see ISIS as an existential threat. For this reason, they may drag their feet. If this happens, ISIS might respond in kind, considering this a signal for it to restrict its destructive and barbaric activities to the Arab region.

For this reason, the voices rising in the American arena to caution against repercussions for the US homeland should the hesitant and reluctant policies continue are sounding the alarm about the threat that the popular majority wants to be dealt with, while the US administration wants to mitigate until the nuclear negotiations with Iran are concluded.

For this reason as well, retired military figures and others in Congress consider the leniency with Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions as a threat to the stability of the Middle East and US interests. This is a taste of what is to come should nuclear negotiations fail with Iran.

These voices are reminding people that the United States has the option of imposing an economic blockade on Iran, should the nuclear talks fail. It also has the ability to thwart Iranian intervention in Syria -- whether direct or through groups like Hezbollah -- and trim Iran regional ambitions.

The coming phase will be difficult for the Arab region. But it will not be a phase in which Islamic radicalism in its multiple sectarian flavors will triumph.

Translated from Arabic by Karim Traboulsi

DELHI, India — On a recent Sunday afternoon in the tightly packed slum of Narela at the edge of Delhi, a group of children sat on a bright green rug amid broken tiles, bricks and bits of wood, engrossed in an animated discussion about their neighborhood.

Hens and goats roamed around. Older women in the traditional Indian sari sauntered past. Plastic buckets, used to fetch water from the nearby standpost, lay stacked in a corner. A small child shrieked, trying to clamber aboard a push-cart. The children, roughly between the ages of 7 to 16, talked of the need for toilets, clean water, parks and street lights. The weekly meeting of their child club, known as Mannat, was in progress.

A visitor might ask why children would like to spend part of their weekend in a meeting instead of playing. One answer is because they don't have a playground nor any of the recreation facilities that more affluent children in India's cities take for granted.

Female genital mutilation is on the rise in the U.S., and a number of doctors here are ramping up their efforts to reverse the damage the practice causes with a relatively new restorative surgery.

Friday marks the U.N.'s International Day of Zero Toleration to Female Genital Mutilation, and a new report found that the risks for girls and women in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2000. But there is renewed hope for females who have been cut as more physicians are offering clitoroplasty, which restores clitoral function.

While reconstructive surgery has long been available, about 10 years ago, French physician Dr. Pierre Foldes pioneered a procedure, which rebuilds the damaged area and rejuvenates the nerve networks so that patients can regain sensitivity and in some cases, attain orgasm, according to the U.N.

"It can certainly improve women's pleasure and lessen their pain," Foldes said in a statement in 2012 after studying the results of 3,000 such surgeries. "It also allows mutilated women to recover their identity."

During the one-year follow-up, most patients reported experiencing less pain or at least no worsening pain, and 81 percent said their sex lives had improved, according to a study published in The Lancet.

While the surgery proved effective, Foldes also noted at the time that it was cost prohibitive and needed to become more readily available for the girls and women who are eager to get it.

More than 130 girls and women worldwide have undergone FGM, which involves partial or total removal of the external female genitalia and has no medical benefit. The number of women and girls who are at risk in the U.S. has more than doubled to half a million over the past 15 years, according to a study released on Friday by the Population Reference Bureau.

The nonprofit attributes the concerning increase to a rise in immigration from African countries.

FGM poses a slew of health risks, including causing damage to adjacent organs, recurring urinary tract infections, birth complications, the formation of dermoid cysts and, in some cases, can lead to death.

Girls are typically cut before the onset of puberty, with the goal of making them remain virgins before marriage and faithful to their husbands once they wed, according to UNICEF.

In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly called on all countries to eliminate the practice. But in countries where it's widely practiced, FGM shows no sign of slowing down.

In Egypt and Somalia, for example, more than 90 percent of the female population is affected by the tradition.

Realizing the overwhelming need of women who have undergone FGM, Dr. Marci Bowers, a renowned expert in transgender surgery, according to the BBC, now devotes a portion of her practice in California to performing clitoroplasty.

She trained with Foldes in France and did her first clitoral repair surgery in the U.S. in 2009. Since then, she's done about 100 such procedures, according to The Washington Post.

Bowers was the subject of a Vice documentary, "The Cut That Heals," which was released on Friday.

Ayan, a 32-year-old nurse who was cut in Somalia when she was 6, is a patient of Bowers and was featured in the film. She fled for the United States in the '90s and had been too "ashamed" to see an OB-GYN before she met Bowers.

Before the surgery, she told Vice she felt "OK" about her body, barring the "particular issue she wants reversed."

Ayan said she is a virgin and plans on remaining so until she gets married. But she doesn't need the pain and the scars from the FGM procedure to be "reminded to be pure."

Bowers performs the procedure, which takes less than an hour, for free. Patients just have to pay the operating room and anesthesia fees, according to her website.

But she says the surgery is about much more than just enabling women to feel sexual pleasure.

"The number one reason is restoration of identity," she told The Washington Post. "They want their body back and to feel more normal. It's about not being different any more."

Six weeks after the surgery, Ayan wrote in an essay for Vice that her menstrual cramps had already eased up and that she's "healing beautifully."

"I was immediately overcome by a feeling of completeness," she wrote. "It was an unfamiliar feeling."

Arturo O'Farrill wants Africa to get the credit it deserves.

The New York-based pianist, composer and educator traveled Friday to Los Angeles to attend the Grammys, where his Afro Latin Jazz Orchestra's "The Offense of the Drum" is nominated for best Latin jazz album.

"We talk a lot about Afro-Cuban jazz, but we don't really talk about Africa and its impact on the Dominican Republic, on Venezuela, Colombia -- bro, in Peru!" O'Farrill told The Huffington Post. "There's whole parts of Colombia where they play a music called pacífico, and the instruments that they use are direct descendants of marímbulas and instruments that you can find throughout the west coast of Africa. How do you think it got there? Cuba's a small -- maybe a very vibrant and important part of that picture -- but Cuba's just one aspect."

Born in Mexico to Cuban and Mexican parents and raised in New York City, O'Farrill says his musical inspiration remains rooted in his African cultural heritage -- a heritage he says people from across the Caribbean and other parts of Latin America share, regardless of skin color.

"This music wouldn't exist without Africa, without African voices," O'Farrill said. "It permeates everything we do. People don't realize that Latin America is more than a landmass, it's one big culture that we all share ... Whether you're an African descendant or not, culturally a lot of us are Afro-descendants. And who wouldn't want to be?"

Like the United States, most Latin American societies are a multiracial mix of largely indigenous, European and African peoples -- though people of virtually all backgrounds and parts of the globe have settled in the region. In places like Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Brazil, where many if not most people are either black or mixed-race, African influences can be found in virtually every aspect of the culture, whether it's the language, food or religion.

But O'Farrill says too many musicians shortchange their African heritage.

"A lot of groups spend their whole cultural and aesthetic identity trying to move away from Africa, which I think is a mistake," O'Farrill said. "One of the reasons I love Cuba and cultures like that is because they're not trying to move away from their African roots, they're trying to embrace them. That's part of the culture. That's why, in those cultures, the Yoruban religion is so important -- because it brings us right back to Africa."

"To me it's freedom," O'Farrill added. "That music is all freedom."

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama released an updated national security strategy on Friday committing the United States to a leading world role while also highlighting a cautious foreign policy doctrine that has been shorthanded as "don't do stupid stuff."
In a 29-page memo to Congress required under law that will be closely parsed by foreign policy experts and Obama's Republican critics, the White House broadly outlined Obama's foreign policy priorities for the rest of his time in office.
"The question is never whether America should lead, but how we lead," Obama wrote in his introduction, describing challenges including violent extremism, Russian aggression, cyberattacks and climate change that he believes are best addressed by mobilizing international coalitions.
The United States cannot try to "dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world" as it does not have infinite resources nor influence to tackle complex problems that cannot be fixed only with its military might, he said.
"We must always resist the overreach that comes when we make decisions based upon fear," Obama said.
Obama's top national security adviser, Susan Rice, was due to speak about the strategy at 1 p.m. EST (1800 GMT).
The new document updates a lengthier one issued in 2010, when Obama was only 15 months into the job. Since then, he has been frequently criticized at home and abroad for excess caution.
The president's overarching national security principle, as elaborated by some White House aides, has been "don't do stupid stuff" to avoid actions that could have dangerous unforeseen consequences.
Obama renewed the U.S. commitment to lead an international coalition to defeat Islamic State militants and to work with European allies to isolate Russia over its moves in support of rebels in eastern Ukraine - crises that did not exist in 2010.
He also placed a much stronger emphasis on the vaunted economic, military and diplomatic "rebalance" to Asia, where he seeks to counter China's growing power.
The document emphasized the importance of trade, mentioning trade deals twice as frequently as in 2010, an average of once every page.
"Through our trade and investment policies, we will shape globalization so that it is working for American workers," the document said. This is the case he has made to lawmakers to win support for an agenda that includes an ambitious Pacific trade pact.
The White House also emphasized the strategic importance of booming U.S. oil and natural gas production, noting that America has a stake in the energy security of allies in Europe and elsewhere.
"Increasing global access to reliable and affordable energy is one of the most powerful ways to support social and economic development and to help build new markets for U.S. technology and investment," the strategy said. (Additional reporting by Krista Hughes, David Brunnstrom and Susan Heavey; Editing by David Story and Tom Brown)

If President Barack Obama has any thoughts on Jordan's execution of two prisoners, he's keeping them to himself.

During a press conference this week, Fox News' Ed Henry, following up on a previous questions, asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest how it was possible not to have a reaction to Jordan's decision to retaliate against the Islamic State after the militant group's brutal killing of Jordanian fight pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh.

Another reporter had previously pointed out the European Union has come out against Jordan's decision to execute the prisoners.

"The United States stands with our friends in Jordan as they confront this awful, barbaric act. But as it relates to the decisions that are carried by the Jordanian justice system, I'd refer you to them," Earnest said in response to Henry. "I just don't have the working knowledge of the Jordanian justice system to render an opinion on this."

"All I know is that the individuals that we're discussing here were individuals who were convicted of terrorism-related crimes, they were individuals who were sentenced to death, and these were individuals who'd been serving time on death row," he continued.

The Islamic State group released a graphic video of al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive that started circulating online Tuesday. Jordan officials announced their decision to execute the two Iraqi al Qaeda prisoners Wednesday and called for action against the Islamic State, saying "this evil can and should be defeated."

When Russia first expropriated Crimea last year, I wrote that neither the EU nor the U.S. were likely to take military action to reverse the tide, and that in the end, Russia didn't care much about whether it is a member of the G8 or not. Some economic sanctions would ensue, I predicted, but to Mr. Putin and many Russians, righting an historical wrong was far more important than what may come as a result. They also knew that Europe and the U.S. need Russia every bit as much as Russia needs them -- perhaps more so considering Europe's dependency on Russia for natural gas, and the desire for much needed collaboration between the U.S. and Russia on Iran and Syria.

At issue then, as now, was the perceived legitimacy (on the part of Russia) of the government in Kiev, ethnicity in Ukraine, Russian history, Russian pride, and Russia's ability and willingness to project its power. Depending on one's frame of reference, Russia's actions have either evoked outrage or relief, as Ukraine has become the epicenter of the battle between pro and anti-European and Russian influence in the region. In the absence of any meaningful military response by either Europe or the United States -- which remains to be seen, but, a year after the fact, is more likely be more oriented toward preventing any further expansion of Russian-backed military forces, rather than an effort to repel them altogether -- Mr. Putin has achieved what many Russians have sought since jurisdiction over Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954.

In spite of all the economic pain Russia (and Russians) have thus far endured as a result of sanctions, and the plummeting price of oil, support for Mr. Putin remains at more than 70 percent, according to a January poll taken by the Public Opinion Foundation. That is astounding, and should give Western policy makers some guidance as to what to expect from him going forward: in short (as if there were any doubt), more of the same. Indeed -- what else do they need to know? As long as he has the support of the Russian people, he will continue on the course he has set. Apparently, the average Russian would rather eat rubber than give in on Crimea and Ukraine.

Similarly, in spite of the tremendous economic and political pressure that is being applied to Mr. Putin as a result of the plunge in oil price to modify his position on support for Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, he is unlikely to do so. While many around the world may chide him for his overt display of testosterone, having done so resonates with people who identify with his unabashed bravado, and Russia's willingness to challenge the status quo. In the body of global public opinion, Mr. Putin has plenty of admirers, which gives Russia an added incentive to continue thumbing its nose at the West.

In the eyes of many, the choice in Ukraine and Syria appears to be between a) Russia as a former global power, ruled by a strong man (wearing a cape of 'democracy'), which seeks to restore part of its former glory by resurrecting old alliances, flexing its muscles, rejecting the existing world order, and challenging 'the way things are' on a broad scale, and b) the U.S. as a fading superpower (with China nipping at its heels), trying to 'do the right thing' in the world (but really just looking after itself and its interests, like any other country), paralyzed by its own hubris and political infighting, and having difficulty getting much of anything done -- domestically or internationally.

There is plenty to like and dislike about both options. But, given the fractured and evolving global political landscape, both sides, and neither side, will achieve all of its objectives. Swimming against the tide has its own appeal at a time when virtually everything about the world order seems to be up for grabs. By the same token, trying to maintain stability has obvious appeal. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and the stakes are high, which is yet another reason neither side has much interest in backing down.

More to the point, having such battle lines drawn seems to suit the powers that be - on both sides of the divide -- rather well, as a convenient rallying point for nationalists to wave the flag, for extremists to promote their causes, and for the people who hold the levers of power to maintain their hold. Russia is a well-ingrained enemy of the U.S., and vice versa. For that reason, not too much effort is required to dust off and re-oil the propaganda machines on both sides of the Atlantic. Both sides appear to have an interest in prolonging the status quo between them for the foreseeable future.

As for Mr. Putin, there would appear to be little incentive to change course -- in Russia, Ukraine, Syria, or anywhere else where Russia is in the process of flexing its muscles. Ukraine demonstrates very well that while NATO is unified as a political force, it is anything but as a military force, and Europe is as disjointed in terms of international policy making as it has ever been. Any future military response to Russia in Ukraine will undoubtedly prove to be -- and be seen as - too little and too late. Mr. Putin knows this as well as anyone.

I was waiting to buy a ticket to see the new film American Sniper when the guy next to me provided a capsule review. It was a fantastic movie, he told me. The main character, Chris Kyle, was a great guy, and the film really showed what the war over there was like.

"And the Taliban are evil," he added. "They were just doing terrible things, using kids to throw bombs and stuff."

The fellow told me that the movie had inspired him to look up more information about Chris Kyle on the Internet and learn about his tragic death. But despite this additional research, he still believed that Kyle was fighting against the Taliban. In fact, American Sniper is about Kyle's four tours in Iraq.

My fellow moviegoer can't really be blamed for the confusion. American Sniper doesn't dwell much on the targets of the American army. Of course it mentions several times that Kyle was deployed to Iraq. But the locale of the movie doesn't really matter. We are supposed to be spending most of our time in Chris Kyle's head, and Kyle was focused on killing the bad guys wherever they might be.

In both American Sniper and that other controversial recent release The Interview, Americans are the heroes and foreigners are the targets. And not just foreigners but furriners: an undifferentiated group of people so alien in their ways that they are practically subhuman. Although the first movie is a drama and the second is a comedy, they espouse a similar philosophy. The Americans in these films don't negotiate with evil, as Dick Cheney once famously said, they defeat it: one on one in a test of wills.

In a bizarre coincidence, both movies even climax in identical ways. In scenes that show the slow-motion trajectory of a deadly projectile and the graphic death of the chief villain, the American cowboys get their men. In another parallel, the films haven't gone over well in the countries of these villains, neither in North Korea nor in Iraq.

In war and regime change, furriners are an inscrutable bunch. They are obviously bad guys, or we wouldn't be trying to kill them or oust them from power. They lie. Some of them even pretend to be our friends. But ultimately, as these two buddy movies demonstrate, furriners can't be our buddies. They don't just envy us, as George W. Bush would have it. They want us dead.

So, who can blame us for standing our ground and hitting them before they hit America?

Inside North Korea

First I have a confession to make. I found parts of The Interview very funny. Critics have generally been lukewarm about the film, calling it inane and sophomoric. And the North Korean government didn't like it very much either, largely because it features the assassination of its leader.

James Franco plays TV host Dave Skylark and Seth Rogen plays his handler Aaron Rapaport. As in previous movies like Pineapple Express, Franco and Rogen use The Interview as a vehicle to explore male bonding. The funniest parts come at the beginning, when Skylark tries to establish a rapport with a straight-faced Eminem, and then later compares his friendship with Rapaport to various pairings in the Lord of the Rings -- which occasions the most unsettling impression of Gollum that I've ever seen. Also priceless is a hilariously awkward meeting where a former journalism school classmate who works at 60 Minutes ridicules Rapaport for the trashy "news" he produces. The meeting inspires Rapaport to aim higher.

If The Interview had remained in the United States, it could have been a very funny send-up of what passes for TV news these days -- and saved Sony millions of dollars in damages connected to the hacking that took place in December prior to the film's premier. But no, just like their characters in the film, Franco and Rogen wanted to raise their game. Making fun of America's tabloid journalism -- and relying on body part humor -- was too easy. They wanted to take on a dictator, and a real one at that. And that's when things got complicated.

The creators of The Interview certainly know something about North Korea. The Pyongyang airport is appropriately empty of traffic. The children performers at the dinner banquet could have come directly from the Children's Palace. And Kim Jong Eun, played by Randall Park, worries about his father's approval (though Kim Jong Il's accusations of effeminacy were actually directed at his other son, Kim Jong Chol). Finally, given the leader's friendship with Dennis Rodman, it's not so far-fetched that he might develop an interest in someone as gonzo as Dave Skylark.

But a little knowledge proves here to be a dangerous thing. North Koreans are portrayed as entirely credulous people who, once they learn that their leader goes to the bathroom like everyone else, will shed their illusions and rise up against him. In fact, judging from defector testimony, even members of the North Korean elite no longer subscribe to the personality cult.

Pyongyang, meanwhile, is in many ways a showcase city, but not quite the Potemkin village portrayed in the film. Skylark becomes enraged when he comes upon a food-stuffed grocery store, which he'd earlier glimpsed from the backseat of a car, and discovers that the fruits and vegetables are made of plaster. But how would he have reacted to the private Tongil Market in Pyongyang, which is genuinely well provisioned, but only for those who can afford it? Would he rail against it as a sign of totalitarian inequality or celebrate the emergence of capitalism in North Korea?

But The Interview doesn't live or die on the faithfulness of its representations of North Korea. It's not, after all, a documentary. Rather, as the action shifts to Pyongyang, it's becomes progressively less funny. There are a couple of amusing scenes in which Randall Park's Kim is at his most human -- singing along with Katy Perry and partying with Skylark. The rest of the humor relies on one joke: North Koreans are wooden. And since when exactly was assassination funny?

In 1991, Colin Powell declared at the end of the first Gulf War that he was running out of enemies and only had Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro left. The same holds true for Hollywood, not only in terms of who are the villains (always Nazis, sometimes Russians, occasionally Muslims), but who can be the butt of humor. The only people that can be safely made fun of in a collective way are obscure (the Kazakhs of Borat) or the roundly vilified (North Koreans). They don't have strong lobbies in the United States devoted to image control.

But at least The Interview features one decent North Korean, who has been transformed by the love of an American. That's more than can be said for American Sniper and its approach to furriners.

Sniper vs. Sniper

The director of American Sniper, Clint Eastwood, is no stranger to westerns. He starred in them and directed one of the best (Unforgiven).

He sets up his latest film according to the basic principles of a western, transplanted to Iraq. Chris Kyle is a modern-day cowboy, quite literally, for he starts out as a bronco rider with a keen sense of right and wrong imparted to him by his father. There are sheep and wolves, his father tells him over dinner, and then there are the sheepdogs that protect the innocent weak from the evil strong.

Kyle becomes a Navy Seal and, based on his marksmanship, does four tours in Iraq as a sharpshooter. There he builds up a reputation as "the Legend," with more than 160 kills to his name. He saves his buddies, he goes after the unmistakably evil Butcher, and he suffers no qualms. As he explains to a psychiatrist at the VA, he only wishes he could have saved more American soldiers.

Eastwood is no fool. He wants to celebrate the sacrifices made by American soldiers. But he also wants to inject some ambiguity into the film, if only to appeal to a larger, more liberal audience.

Although he doesn't speak of it, Kyle is worried about the nature of his job. After all, he is not exactly protecting the weak. He is keeping watch over highly trained and well-armed Marines who are going door to door scaring the bejesus out of mostly Iraqi women and children. Of course, the movie suggests that some of these women and children are also legitimate targets, but Kyle is clearly struggling with the burden of determining which of the people in his sniper scope are friendly and which are not.

When one of his fellow Seals gets shot and killed, Kyle attends the funeral stateside. The victim's mother reads her son's last letter, which speaks of the war turning into a "wrongful crusade." Kyle dismisses this sentiment and tells his wife that it was the letter that killed his buddy.

In some sense, he's right. The war required absolute faith on the part of the soldiers, and agnostics like his fallen buddy could not last long out there. The moral quandary Kyle faces is expressed most unexpectedly when, at a birthday party back in Texas, he assaults a real sheepdog that he believes is attacking a child. The war has made him lose his moral compass.

All of this may well be too subtle for most American moviegoers. The film, after all, is structured like a video game with four levels. If he kills enough "savages," Kyle can return to the States and prepare himself for the next level. The last stage of this "game" features the ultimate competition, the High Noon standoff that caps all westerns. The Legend must kill or be killed by Mustafa, an insurgent sniper who'd once won a medal at the Olympics for his skills. It is a fitting match-up.

But even though Mustafa is doing his job, just like Kyle, and even though the rival sniper also acts as a sheepdog in his efforts to protect his flock from murderous outsiders, he receives no sympathy in the film. He is just another "savage."

Here was Eastwood's opportunity to humanize the adversary. He failed to do so. They all remain, in the end, furriners. The ambiguities of war are inserted only to make the American hero more complex. The furriners are just sniper fodder.

Too Soon to Humanize?

I don't expect the creators of The Interview to go out of their way to humanize North Koreans. They've produced a comedy that, like the characters in the film, hews closely to the politics of the U.S. government.

Clint Eastwood is a different story, his conservative politics notwithstanding. As a director, he created a two-part epic about the battle of Iwo Jima: Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. He filmed the two movies back to back, the first looking at the battle from the American perspective and the second from the Japanese viewpoint. Indeed, Letters from Iwo Jimafeatures an all-Japanese cast, is in Japanese for the most part, and features not furriners but real people. In a supreme irony, Letters from Iwo Jima did better at the box office than its American counterpart.

But of course neither film was a blockbuster -- in stark contrast to American Sniper, the highest grossing war film of all time.

Japan today is a stable, more-or-less democratic country that the United States counts as a major ally. The passage of time and the tides of geopolitics, in other words, have done much to transform the image of the Japanese in American culture to make a work like Letters from Iwo Jima possible.

The Iraq War, however, is too fresh a wound in the American memory. And in some sense we are still fighting that war today, on the ground with advisors and in the air against the Islamic State -- just as we continue to fight against North Korea with full-spectrum surveillance and economic sanctions. It's not surprising, then, that in their depiction of furriners, Hollywood movies continue to wage their version of war as well.