Asra Q. Nomani (right), a Muslim woman, presents a strong case in “Airport Security: Let’s Profile Muslims,” an article on The Daily Beast.

As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim….

We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians….

I realize that in recent years, profiling has become a dirty word, synonymous with prejudice, racism, and bigotry. But while I believe our risk assessment should not end with religion, race and ethnicity, I believe that it should include these important elements, as part of a “triage” strategy….

Profiling doesn’t have to be about discrimination, persecution, or harassment….

In [a] debate, I said, “Profile me. Profile my family,” because, in my eyes, we in the Muslim community have failed to police ourselves….

To me, profiling isn’t about identity politics but about threat assessment….

Data in reports released over the past several months…reveal that over the past decade not only are many defendants in terrorism cases Muslim, but they trace their national or ethnic identity back to specific countries. According to the Rand study “Would-Be Warriors,” the national origins or ethnicities most defendants came from was Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt, with a handful from the Muslim areas of the Balkans….

I know this is an issue of great distress to many people. But I believe that we cannot bury our heads in the sand anymore. We have to choose pragmatism over political correctness, and allow U.S. airports and airlines to do religious and racial profiling.

The June 28 edition of BusinessWeek cited the major items China buys from the United States:

1. Beverages and alcohol.
2. Agriculture and livestock products.
3. Waste and scrap.
4. Iron, steel, copper, and aluminum.

The third item is the one that grabbed my attention, for three reasons.

One: We produce a whole lot of waste and scrap, if that’s our third-largest export to China.

Two: Why can’t WE use that waste and scrap to produce more consumer goods? You know–recycling. Is it because we don’t make stuff anymore? We’ve sent all of our manufacturing abroad?

Our fourth-largest export is instructive: raw materials that American industries should be using to produce stuff. The Chinese make stuff, they sell it to us, and when we’re done with it, we sell it back to them to make more stuff to sell us. The Circle of Life. Elton John wrote a song about that.

Three: We’re missing out on yet another Green industry. The Europeans are perfecting wind power. The Japanese, Chinese, and Europeans have the high-speed trains. The Japanese produce hybrid and electric cars, and lead in battery technology. The Israelis are assembling the infrastructure for electric cars. And the Chinese process the world’s junk and turn it into something useful.

Lots of Green jobs are being created around the world, while we sit back and gulp our beloved oil and insist that the sky isn’t falling.

Pundit/comedian Bill Maher says Apple CEO Steve Jobs would do a better job of running America than the Obama administration.

“America needs to focus on getting Jobs — Steve Jobs. Because something tells me that Apple would have come up with a better idea for stopping an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico than putting a giant box on top of it.

“In 2001, Apple reinvented the record player. In 2007, the phone. This year, the computer. I say, for 2011, we let them take a crack at America. Our infrastructure, our business model, our institutions. Get rid of the stuff that’s not working, replace it with something that does. For example, goodbye US Senate — Hello Genius Bar! So good luck, Steve — you’ll need it!”

In his book “The Bottom Billion,” about the world’s poorest countries (which I reviewed earlier), Paul Collier writes:

“Elections determine who is in power, but they do not determine how power is used.”

In our quest to spread democracy, we tend to place way too much emphasis on elections. Democracy involves a whole system of governance. Third World countries have learned how to hold elections, putting on a show for the world, without really instituting democracy.

Collier says studies show that in countries that successfully turned around, democracy and political rights were not important factors–a result he finds “extremely disappointing.” But results are results.

What’s really needed, he writes, is political checks and balances.

Without systemic checks and balances, tyrants can rule behind the facade of elections, cloaking themselves in an illusion of legitimacy. Like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines (RIP), or that idiot in Iran. Or maybe Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan? Collier says our enthusiasm for elections needs to be joined with enthusiasm for political restraints.

The US (and most western countries) have separate branches of government which provide checks and balances. But a legislature or judicial system can be co-opted by a totalitarian ruler.  Collier cites a free media as the best form of checks and balances. Freedom of the press, which has characterized the US since our founding, is a key indicator of health. As much as we gripe about the media’s excesses and biases, it’s a crucial part of who we are. When you see a country where the media is free to criticize the government, it’s usually a sign of democratic health.

The Predator unmanned drone is an incredible weapon. Some consider it by far the most effective weapon we have against Al Qaeda. You don’t hear much about the Predator successes, because they usually occur in remote regions of Pakistan where reporters can’t go. But Predators are constantly on the prowl, and constantly taking out Bad Guys.

The New Yorker has the best long-form reporting you’ll find anywhere, and Jane Mayer, who mostly writes on military affairs, has become my favorite New Yorker writer. Last October she wrote a lengthy feature (is there any other kind in the New Yorker?) looking at how we use the Predator. It was fascinating.

There are two Predator programs. The military version operates in Afghanistan and Iraq as an extension of ground forces, with 200+ drones. The CIA’s program is aimed at terror suspects wherever they can be found, but mostly in Pakistan; the program isn’t officially acknowledged, and the number of Predators is unknown.

The CIA strikes require the president’s approval. President Obama has dramatically increased  the number of Predator strikes, beginning with two strikes in Pakistan on his third day in office.

During his first nine months in office, Obama authorized more CIA aerial attacks in Pakistan than George Bush did in his final three years in office–over 40 strikes, or around one bombing a week. Those strikes had  killed up to 538 people (Predators leave a lot of collateral damage, but you’ve got to have mixed feelings about folks who hang out around terrorists). Multiple drones constantly fly over Pakistan, looking for targets.

She writes about four Europeans who tried to join Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and who “described a life of constant fear and distrust among the militants, whose obsession with drone strikes had led them to communicate only with elaborate secrecy and to leave their squalid hideouts only at night.” Wouldn’t you be uptight if you knew a silent, invisible Predator circling above might fire a missile into you at any moment?

One Taliban leader the Pakistanis wanted killed was targeted by 16 missile strikes before we finally got him. Those first 15 strikes killed 207-321 people, depending on your information source. So that’s an issue our military leaders wrestle with.

How many innocent people is it okay to kill? John Radsan, a former CIA lawyer, put it like this: “If it’s Osama bin Laden in a house with a four-year-old, most people will say go ahead. But if it’s three or four children? Some say that’s too many. And if he’s in a school? Many say don’t do it.”

That gives insight into the difficult decisions military leaders in a values-laded country must make regarding terrorists who cowardly hide among innocent people.