TW:...but perhaps ultimately more effective and less costly in blood and treasure
"Amazing what can happen when you have a foreign policy that includes diplomacy and force and sophistication."
--Andrew Sullivan's comment on the Coll article
From Steve Coll at New Yorker:
"The news that a joint C.I.A.-Pakistani raid in Karachi resulted last week in the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is a big deal...Why would Pakistan move decisively against Afghan Taliban leadership now? The Times suggests that Pakistani generals under the lame-duck Army chief, General Ashraf Kiyani, are coming around to the view that they require a national-security doctrine that does not involve sheltering the Afghan Taliban...
I would guess at a more subtle motivation, one that might suggest a favorable pattern now emerging in the Obama Administration’s and Central Command’s approach to Pakistan’s role in the Afghan conflict. Over the last few months, by multiple means, the United States and its allies have been seeking to persuade Pakistan that it can best achieve its legitimate security goals in Afghanistan through political negotiations, rather than through the promotion of endless (and futile) Taliban guerrilla violence—and that the United States will respect and accommodate Pakistan’s agenda in such talks. Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban, especially in recent years, was always best understood as a military lever to promote political accommodations of Pakistan in Kabul. Baradar, however, has defiantly refused to participate in such political strategies...The more the Taliban’s leaders enjoying sanctuary in Karachi or Quetta refuse to lash themselves to Pakistani political strategy, the more vulnerable they become to a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
If, through a combination of pressure and enticement, Pakistan and the United States can draw sections of the Taliban into peaceful negotiations, while incarcerating those who refuse to participate, it will produce a sweeping change in the war. With enough momentum, such a strategy would also increase the incentives for Pakistan and Taliban elements to betray Al Qaeda’s top leaders. It’s been a while since there has been unadulterated good news out of Pakistan. Today there is."
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Paranoia=Torture=Inefficacy
From Economist:
"THERE are apparently a significant number of people in America who don't think that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been arrested, read his rights, and interrogated by FBI officers, with a view to ultimate prosecution in a court of law for the crime of attempted murder.
...when Jeff Sessions (Republican Senator Alabama) said Mr Abdulmutallab should have been "properly interrogated" as opposed to arrested by FBI agents, read his rights, and interrogated, what he presumably meant was that he should have been treated the way we treated the inmates at Bagram and Guantanamo: locked up extra-legally and tortured...As Scott Brown says, "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." I have no idea what Mr Brown is afraid might happen to Mr Abdulmutallab in court: that, with a clever lawyer, he might beat the rap? The man's underpants burst into flame in full view of an airplane full of passengers.
Should any such people care, the New York Times reports that the reason why Mr Abdulmutallab is providing FBI interrogators with valuable information about terrorist networks is that his family persuaded him to cooperate. And his family did so because they, poor fools, trust the American system of justice.
Mr. Abdulmutallab, 23, began speaking to F.B.I. agents last week in Detroit and has not stopped, two government officials said. The officials declined to disclose what information was obtained from him, but said it was aiding in the investigation of the attempted terrorist attack.
“With the family, the F.B.I. approached the suspect,” the senior administration official said, speaking to reporters at the White House on the condition of anonymity because of the pending legal case. “He has been cooperating for days.”
I'm sure this will convince no one who believes in the efficacy of torture...After the attacks of September 11th, a certain number of people stumbled down a dark staircase that led to a twisted path. Blinded by stubbornness, they pressed on through years of such strange turns and illogical leaps that by now they find themselves speaking from a place that no longer seems to me to be part of America, or of the civilisation of the Western Enlightenment. I don't know where they're at, and I don't care."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/abdulmutallabs_family_gets_him_talk_fbi
TW: While I empathsize with the Economist blogger, I do actually do care about my fellow Americans' attitudes. For some fear has overcome common sense and good judgment. Paranoia will destroia...We are better than that which Jeff Sessions and Scott Brown (and a plethora of their fellow fraidy cat conservatives) would create. We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time (i.e. remain secure whilst retaining liberty and civil rights).
"THERE are apparently a significant number of people in America who don't think that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been arrested, read his rights, and interrogated by FBI officers, with a view to ultimate prosecution in a court of law for the crime of attempted murder.
...when Jeff Sessions (Republican Senator Alabama) said Mr Abdulmutallab should have been "properly interrogated" as opposed to arrested by FBI agents, read his rights, and interrogated, what he presumably meant was that he should have been treated the way we treated the inmates at Bagram and Guantanamo: locked up extra-legally and tortured...As Scott Brown says, "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." I have no idea what Mr Brown is afraid might happen to Mr Abdulmutallab in court: that, with a clever lawyer, he might beat the rap? The man's underpants burst into flame in full view of an airplane full of passengers.
Should any such people care, the New York Times reports that the reason why Mr Abdulmutallab is providing FBI interrogators with valuable information about terrorist networks is that his family persuaded him to cooperate. And his family did so because they, poor fools, trust the American system of justice.
Mr. Abdulmutallab, 23, began speaking to F.B.I. agents last week in Detroit and has not stopped, two government officials said. The officials declined to disclose what information was obtained from him, but said it was aiding in the investigation of the attempted terrorist attack.
“With the family, the F.B.I. approached the suspect,” the senior administration official said, speaking to reporters at the White House on the condition of anonymity because of the pending legal case. “He has been cooperating for days.”
I'm sure this will convince no one who believes in the efficacy of torture...After the attacks of September 11th, a certain number of people stumbled down a dark staircase that led to a twisted path. Blinded by stubbornness, they pressed on through years of such strange turns and illogical leaps that by now they find themselves speaking from a place that no longer seems to me to be part of America, or of the civilisation of the Western Enlightenment. I don't know where they're at, and I don't care."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/abdulmutallabs_family_gets_him_talk_fbi
TW: While I empathsize with the Economist blogger, I do actually do care about my fellow Americans' attitudes. For some fear has overcome common sense and good judgment. Paranoia will destroia...We are better than that which Jeff Sessions and Scott Brown (and a plethora of their fellow fraidy cat conservatives) would create. We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time (i.e. remain secure whilst retaining liberty and civil rights).
Friday, January 22, 2010
What Is Big Government?
TW: These type dichotomies are why I call Bullshit on those who disclaim "big government" and parade around alleging some righteousness in the cause of "liberty". Many on the right are highly comfortable with certain forms of big government just not those which do not jive with their views of what is important. Security at all costs, equality not so much, equity not so much.
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Monday, January 4, 2010
Dick "the Toe" Morris' 2009 Predictions
TW: For shits and grins I get Dick Morris' email screeds. That Morris once worked for Bill Clinton is a huge blemish on Clinton's legacy. That Morris HATES Hillary Clinton speaks well for her. Morris has rooted against Obama with a full throated roar (he is on Fox regularly) since Obama took the Democratic nomination.
His type cheer against America if it would help his now conservative soulmates. He made a couple of predictions about this time last year. I kept them assuming they would not age well. What is most striking is the memes the tea-baggers and much of the Republican leadership have pounded for the past year were not organic based upon evolving events; they were pre-baked, honed and ready to roll even BEFORE Obama actually took the oath.
From Dick Morris from January 9, 2009:
"Now I want to turn the crystal ball to the war on terror and foreign affairs and make my predictions for the new year.
Obama has given power to men and women who really don't believe terrorism is much of a problem. They implicitly share the European view that an attack here or there is not worth turning what they regard as constitutional guarantees on their heads. The result is that we will be vastly more vulnerable and have a good chance of being hit again soon."
"The politics of 2009 will be dominated by a continuation and deepening of the global Depression. Under the guise of stimulating the economy, look for Obama to pursue a radical, socialist agenda that will bring America into conformity with the government domination of health care and the economy that prevails in the European Union. When the dust clears, the economy will still be in the tank. The new president's stimulation packages will do little or nothing to abate the depression, but they will transform American life and politics. For his part, Obama will take advantage of his built-in majorities in Congress to pass his agenda, but will suffer rapidly dropping ratings. By the end of the year, he will be as radioactive as Bush is today."
His type cheer against America if it would help his now conservative soulmates. He made a couple of predictions about this time last year. I kept them assuming they would not age well. What is most striking is the memes the tea-baggers and much of the Republican leadership have pounded for the past year were not organic based upon evolving events; they were pre-baked, honed and ready to roll even BEFORE Obama actually took the oath.
From Dick Morris from January 9, 2009:
"Now I want to turn the crystal ball to the war on terror and foreign affairs and make my predictions for the new year.
Obama has given power to men and women who really don't believe terrorism is much of a problem. They implicitly share the European view that an attack here or there is not worth turning what they regard as constitutional guarantees on their heads. The result is that we will be vastly more vulnerable and have a good chance of being hit again soon."
"The politics of 2009 will be dominated by a continuation and deepening of the global Depression. Under the guise of stimulating the economy, look for Obama to pursue a radical, socialist agenda that will bring America into conformity with the government domination of health care and the economy that prevails in the European Union. When the dust clears, the economy will still be in the tank. The new president's stimulation packages will do little or nothing to abate the depression, but they will transform American life and politics. For his part, Obama will take advantage of his built-in majorities in Congress to pass his agenda, but will suffer rapidly dropping ratings. By the end of the year, he will be as radioactive as Bush is today."
Monday, December 28, 2009
Viewing Terror Dispassionately
TW: Certainly terrorism retains symbolic impacts challenging to define by cold hard numbers. But at some point I would hope Americans could, unlike its MSM media, foil terrorism by not fixating and obsessing about it. This weekend's coverage has been ridiculously overwrought and self-absorbed...as usual. No doubt the coming week will add the spice of partisan demagougery.
From Nate Silver at 538.com:
"...Over the past decade, there have been, by my count, six attempted terrorist incidents on board a commercial airliner than landed in or departed from the United States: the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11, the shoe bomber incident in December 2001, and the NWA flight 253 incident on Christmas.
...Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.
These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 mles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.
Assuming an average airborne speed of 425 miles per hour, these airplanes were aloft for a total of 163,331,261 hours. Therefore, there has been one terrorist incident per 27,221,877 hours airborne. This can also be expressed as one incident per 1,134,245 days airborne, or one incident per 3,105 years airborne.
There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html
From Nate Silver at 538.com:
"...Over the past decade, there have been, by my count, six attempted terrorist incidents on board a commercial airliner than landed in or departed from the United States: the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11, the shoe bomber incident in December 2001, and the NWA flight 253 incident on Christmas.
...Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.
These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 mles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.
Assuming an average airborne speed of 425 miles per hour, these airplanes were aloft for a total of 163,331,261 hours. Therefore, there has been one terrorist incident per 27,221,877 hours airborne. This can also be expressed as one incident per 1,134,245 days airborne, or one incident per 3,105 years airborne.
There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Taliban Mostly Terrorists Or Mostly Nationalists? (cont.)
TW: This morning we had a piece questioning the links between the Taliban and al Qaeda, this piece takes a distinctly different view.
From Long War Journal Threat Matrix blog:
"...Abdullah Sa'id al Libi, the commander of the Lashkar al Zil, al Qaeda's Shadow Army, said during an interview with As Sahab that al Qaeda and the Taliban are closely linked. Sa’id makes few distinctions between Taliban and al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. He repeatedly calls Taliban leader Mullah Omar the "Emir al Mumineen," or the Commander of the Faithful. This title has religious significance among jihadis; the Commander of the Faithful is designated the leader of their Islamist caliphate. Osama bin Laden has sworn allegiance to Omar. The close relationship between the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other jihadi groups is made plain by Sa'id in his description of the strength of the Taliban:
...Sa'id is clear that Mullah Omar was unwilling to turn over bin Laden after the US demanded it in late 2001, and that there is no reason to break from al Qaeda now when the Taliban have the upper hand:
"US and western sources talk about their readiness to accept the Taliban in the Afghan future political structure should it leave the Al Qaeda. However, these sources close the eyes to the fact that Mullah Mohammad Omar has lost his throne [ruling] upon his refusal to hand over one person who is Osama bin Laden. Thus, will Mullah Mohammad Omar agree to a condition which he refused when he used to rule and when the United States was at the top of its might, and accept it now while he is on the threshold of a victory over his enemies?"
Then there is this from Mustafa Abu Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, whose eulogy for slain Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud outlines how the Pakistani Taliban sheltered al Qaeda after they fled the US offensive during the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom:
"Amir Baitullah (may God have mercy on him) was a generous, strong, courageous, and noble person when it came to making decisions, especially the decision to host, aid, and shelter his migrating mujahidin brothers. It was he and the sons of his tribe (the generous heroes) who did that. Despite all the attacks, destruction, and killings by the hands of the apostate Pakistani Army in the Wazir tribe in the Wana and Shikay areas, who were first to host their migrating and mujahidin brothers (may God reward them), he did not stop hosting, aiding, and sheltering his migrating brothers."
And Haqqani Network military commander Mullah Sangeen Zadran has stated that there is no difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda:
"All praise is for Allah, Al-Qaeda and Taliban all are Muslims and we are united by the brotherhood of Islam. We do not see any difference between Taliban and Al- Qaeda, for we all belong to the religion of Islam. Sheikh Usama has pledged allegiance to Amir Al-Mumineen (Mulla Muhammad Umar) and has reassured his leadership again and again. There is no difference between us, for we are united by Islam and the Sharia governs us."
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/10/al_qaeda_and_the_taliban_toget_1.php#ixzz0TMETP0Hs
From Long War Journal Threat Matrix blog:
"...Abdullah Sa'id al Libi, the commander of the Lashkar al Zil, al Qaeda's Shadow Army, said during an interview with As Sahab that al Qaeda and the Taliban are closely linked. Sa’id makes few distinctions between Taliban and al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. He repeatedly calls Taliban leader Mullah Omar the "Emir al Mumineen," or the Commander of the Faithful. This title has religious significance among jihadis; the Commander of the Faithful is designated the leader of their Islamist caliphate. Osama bin Laden has sworn allegiance to Omar. The close relationship between the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other jihadi groups is made plain by Sa'id in his description of the strength of the Taliban:
...Sa'id is clear that Mullah Omar was unwilling to turn over bin Laden after the US demanded it in late 2001, and that there is no reason to break from al Qaeda now when the Taliban have the upper hand:
"US and western sources talk about their readiness to accept the Taliban in the Afghan future political structure should it leave the Al Qaeda. However, these sources close the eyes to the fact that Mullah Mohammad Omar has lost his throne [ruling] upon his refusal to hand over one person who is Osama bin Laden. Thus, will Mullah Mohammad Omar agree to a condition which he refused when he used to rule and when the United States was at the top of its might, and accept it now while he is on the threshold of a victory over his enemies?"
Then there is this from Mustafa Abu Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, whose eulogy for slain Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud outlines how the Pakistani Taliban sheltered al Qaeda after they fled the US offensive during the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom:
"Amir Baitullah (may God have mercy on him) was a generous, strong, courageous, and noble person when it came to making decisions, especially the decision to host, aid, and shelter his migrating mujahidin brothers. It was he and the sons of his tribe (the generous heroes) who did that. Despite all the attacks, destruction, and killings by the hands of the apostate Pakistani Army in the Wazir tribe in the Wana and Shikay areas, who were first to host their migrating and mujahidin brothers (may God reward them), he did not stop hosting, aiding, and sheltering his migrating brothers."
And Haqqani Network military commander Mullah Sangeen Zadran has stated that there is no difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda:
"All praise is for Allah, Al-Qaeda and Taliban all are Muslims and we are united by the brotherhood of Islam. We do not see any difference between Taliban and Al- Qaeda, for we all belong to the religion of Islam. Sheikh Usama has pledged allegiance to Amir Al-Mumineen (Mulla Muhammad Umar) and has reassured his leadership again and again. There is no difference between us, for we are united by Islam and the Sharia governs us."
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/10/al_qaeda_and_the_taliban_toget_1.php#ixzz0TMETP0Hs
Our Perceptions Are Not the Only Perceptions
TW: If there is one thing Americans tend to do both sides of the aisle is frame everything in our own viewpoints. We see ourselves one way, others see us differently.
From the Abu Mugawama blog from the CNAS:
"Not to be outdone...on the traveling front, [this blogger]has spent the best part of 24 hours on planes flying around the Middle East. And, the one good thing about travelling economy class on Emirates air are all the free English and Arabic newspapers.
The Taliban attacks on ISAF forces in Nuristan made for the top story in every single title. The story seems like a pretty straight forward affair, but hidden in its coverage is clue to how the Afghan conflict is being seen within the Muslim world.
Wire stories are a nuts and bolts write-by-numbers affair with strict rules on news judgement, impartiality and grammar which aim to ensure the finished written product adheres to the ethos of the organisation and varies little from individual writer to writer. Newspapers then later reprint these stories. Often the only changes they make are to cut out the final paragraphs of background or re-write the headline.
With that in mind, the original Reuters story on the Nuristan attack has the title; Eight U.S. soldiers killed in east Afghan battle. The same story in the Gulf News is; US troops beaten back. AFP's original story has the headline; Eight US troops die in one of worst Afghan battles. The Gulf news runs with; US suffers heavy losses in Taliban's daring attack.
Gulf News is a Dubai-based paper with a fairly neutral line towards the United States...the Arabic newspapers had similar headlines. It would been instructive to look at other newspapers from across the region and monitor the op-eds which will appear in the next couple of days.
The public in ISAF contributing nations are exposed to media stories that highlight the sacrifices of their own country's troops and the general evilness of the enemy. But what we don't see is how the conflict is being viewed abroad. But it is vital strategists are aware of perception in the region when they consider the implications of future strategy decisions.
There is little point denying that the Taliban (whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan) get much popularity for just fighting toe to toe against Western, and particularly American and British, troops. One of the new realities on the ground engendered by the last eight years of conflict is that local militias in the Muslim world attract respect and therefore support just by taking on Western forces. This respect, particularly when it comes from people who live far away from the theatre of conflict, translates into financial support. Many of these groups now have a strong motivation to turn "internationalist" where once they would have been local. Most readers here are aware of the talks between US and Taliban officials held in the US before 9/11. Once, it seemed the Taliban might develop a Saudi-like US client state. Not any more.
In [my] own opinion, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was misguided. But now it's done, it needs to be done right. "Leaving them to it" is morally dubious after a botched occupation that returned a bunch of gangsters to power. Not to mention the years of bloody service Afghanistan provided to the West in its cold war struggle against the Warsaw pact countries. But also, in the same way the Palestinians' use of suicide attacks sanctified their adoption by al Qaeda, what happens in Afghanistan will have an effect in the future. It's only the exact form of that impact that's not clear."
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/echoes-domino-theory.html
From the Abu Mugawama blog from the CNAS:
"Not to be outdone...on the traveling front, [this blogger]has spent the best part of 24 hours on planes flying around the Middle East. And, the one good thing about travelling economy class on Emirates air are all the free English and Arabic newspapers.
The Taliban attacks on ISAF forces in Nuristan made for the top story in every single title. The story seems like a pretty straight forward affair, but hidden in its coverage is clue to how the Afghan conflict is being seen within the Muslim world.
Wire stories are a nuts and bolts write-by-numbers affair with strict rules on news judgement, impartiality and grammar which aim to ensure the finished written product adheres to the ethos of the organisation and varies little from individual writer to writer. Newspapers then later reprint these stories. Often the only changes they make are to cut out the final paragraphs of background or re-write the headline.
With that in mind, the original Reuters story on the Nuristan attack has the title; Eight U.S. soldiers killed in east Afghan battle. The same story in the Gulf News is; US troops beaten back. AFP's original story has the headline; Eight US troops die in one of worst Afghan battles. The Gulf news runs with; US suffers heavy losses in Taliban's daring attack.
Gulf News is a Dubai-based paper with a fairly neutral line towards the United States...the Arabic newspapers had similar headlines. It would been instructive to look at other newspapers from across the region and monitor the op-eds which will appear in the next couple of days.
The public in ISAF contributing nations are exposed to media stories that highlight the sacrifices of their own country's troops and the general evilness of the enemy. But what we don't see is how the conflict is being viewed abroad. But it is vital strategists are aware of perception in the region when they consider the implications of future strategy decisions.
There is little point denying that the Taliban (whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan) get much popularity for just fighting toe to toe against Western, and particularly American and British, troops. One of the new realities on the ground engendered by the last eight years of conflict is that local militias in the Muslim world attract respect and therefore support just by taking on Western forces. This respect, particularly when it comes from people who live far away from the theatre of conflict, translates into financial support. Many of these groups now have a strong motivation to turn "internationalist" where once they would have been local. Most readers here are aware of the talks between US and Taliban officials held in the US before 9/11. Once, it seemed the Taliban might develop a Saudi-like US client state. Not any more.
In [my] own opinion, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was misguided. But now it's done, it needs to be done right. "Leaving them to it" is morally dubious after a botched occupation that returned a bunch of gangsters to power. Not to mention the years of bloody service Afghanistan provided to the West in its cold war struggle against the Warsaw pact countries. But also, in the same way the Palestinians' use of suicide attacks sanctified their adoption by al Qaeda, what happens in Afghanistan will have an effect in the future. It's only the exact form of that impact that's not clear."
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/echoes-domino-theory.html
Taliban Mostly Terrorists Or Mostly Nationalists?
TW: Over the next couple of days I am going to post some bearish views of our involvment in AfPak. These folks would hesitate to increase our footprint in Afghanistan. Next week I will post some more bullish sentiments on increasing our presence.
This piece argues a key point regarding who are the Taliban. AFCEA believes they are primarily Pashtun nationalists. This afternoon I will post an opposing perspective.
From AFCEA's Nightwatch blog:
"Al Qaida is not welcome in Afghanistan by either side of the fight...The Taliban resurgence is a home grown development that did not appeal to, rely on or seek Arab or al Qaida help, according to information in the public domain.
After their ouster from Kandahar in 2001, the Taliban openly derided the Arabs of al Qaida and blamed them for the Taliban’s misfortunes. They vowed never to allow the foreigners -- especially the haughty, insensitive Arabs -- back into Afghanistan, consistent with the history of Pashtun xenophobia...
The premise that Afghanistan would become an al Qaida safe haven under any future government is alarmist and bespeaks a lack of understanding of the Pashtuns on this issue and a superficial knowledge of recent Afghan history.
In December 2001, Omar was ridiculed in public by his own commanders for inviting the “Arabs” and other foreigners, which led to their flight to Pakistan. The worst atrocities committed by the vice and virtue cops of the Taliban government were committed by the foreign thugs who accompanied bin Laden, according to media reports at the time. The Afghans did not behave that way against their own people, though they were brutish against the Soviets.
There is no factual basis for presuming that support for international Islamic terror is the norm in Afghanistan, rather than a tragic mistake. More than a thousand years of history reinforces the ethnic trait of visceral hatred of outsiders of all kind. Omar’s experience with the bin Laden and the Arabs revalidates the ancient wisdom.
...Bin Laden and his acolytes were/are exporters of a toxic world view that took root in Germany deeper than in Afghanistan. The Taliban were focused on subjugating recalcitrant Uzbeks and Tajiks of the Northern Alliance, not on exporting terror. No Afghans attacked the World Trade Center.
Even today, Omar and his merry men do not push – as they easily could -- the age old idea of a greater Pashtunistan that would join Pakistani Pashtuns with Afghan Pashtuns and would split modern day Pakistan north to south along the Indus River. The point is the security situation could be much, much worse and has been in the past, if the Quetta Shura were as brutish as some claim.
There are no good guys, but any successful strategy in Afghanistan will include the Pashtuns in some kind of power sharing arrangement. No matter who governs in Kabul in the future, bin Laden and al Qaida will not find a safe haven in Afghanistan again because almost all Afghans continue to agree on that point after eight years.
For the record, the leading exporters of violent revolutionary doctrines today are the remnants of al Qaida in Pakistan and Iran via the Revolutionary Guards Quds force and its Hizballah proxies. Pakistan is just a regional supporter of terror against its neighbors, but so is India from time to time."
This piece argues a key point regarding who are the Taliban. AFCEA believes they are primarily Pashtun nationalists. This afternoon I will post an opposing perspective.
From AFCEA's Nightwatch blog:
"Al Qaida is not welcome in Afghanistan by either side of the fight...The Taliban resurgence is a home grown development that did not appeal to, rely on or seek Arab or al Qaida help, according to information in the public domain.
After their ouster from Kandahar in 2001, the Taliban openly derided the Arabs of al Qaida and blamed them for the Taliban’s misfortunes. They vowed never to allow the foreigners -- especially the haughty, insensitive Arabs -- back into Afghanistan, consistent with the history of Pashtun xenophobia...
The premise that Afghanistan would become an al Qaida safe haven under any future government is alarmist and bespeaks a lack of understanding of the Pashtuns on this issue and a superficial knowledge of recent Afghan history.
In December 2001, Omar was ridiculed in public by his own commanders for inviting the “Arabs” and other foreigners, which led to their flight to Pakistan. The worst atrocities committed by the vice and virtue cops of the Taliban government were committed by the foreign thugs who accompanied bin Laden, according to media reports at the time. The Afghans did not behave that way against their own people, though they were brutish against the Soviets.
There is no factual basis for presuming that support for international Islamic terror is the norm in Afghanistan, rather than a tragic mistake. More than a thousand years of history reinforces the ethnic trait of visceral hatred of outsiders of all kind. Omar’s experience with the bin Laden and the Arabs revalidates the ancient wisdom.
...Bin Laden and his acolytes were/are exporters of a toxic world view that took root in Germany deeper than in Afghanistan. The Taliban were focused on subjugating recalcitrant Uzbeks and Tajiks of the Northern Alliance, not on exporting terror. No Afghans attacked the World Trade Center.
Even today, Omar and his merry men do not push – as they easily could -- the age old idea of a greater Pashtunistan that would join Pakistani Pashtuns with Afghan Pashtuns and would split modern day Pakistan north to south along the Indus River. The point is the security situation could be much, much worse and has been in the past, if the Quetta Shura were as brutish as some claim.
There are no good guys, but any successful strategy in Afghanistan will include the Pashtuns in some kind of power sharing arrangement. No matter who governs in Kabul in the future, bin Laden and al Qaida will not find a safe haven in Afghanistan again because almost all Afghans continue to agree on that point after eight years.
For the record, the leading exporters of violent revolutionary doctrines today are the remnants of al Qaida in Pakistan and Iran via the Revolutionary Guards Quds force and its Hizballah proxies. Pakistan is just a regional supporter of terror against its neighbors, but so is India from time to time."
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Taliban v. Al-Qaeda
TW: The world is not black and white. We tend to conflate far too many concepts especially related to Al Qaeda. Conflation of concepts got us mired in Iraq (terrorism/Saddam/nationalism/democracy/WMD got all twisted together into a stinking morass). John McCain wants to conflate the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the White House is taking a more nuanced approach. Nuance is complicated, can we deal with it? Fighting Al Qaeda must be nuanced otherwise we should be inside Pakistan today not with drones and a few special forces but the entire U.S. Army and Marine Corps.
From NBC News:
"Today, the debate over the war in Afghanistan and the war with al- Qaeda enters another stage as the president puts a spotlight on the efforts his administration (and President Bush's administration) has put into attacking al Qaeda in countries OUTSIDE of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border...It gets to the nut of the debate inside the White house: how much of the war against al Qaeda is confined to the Af-Pak region and how much of it is still global? Senior officials involved in the day-to-day terror battle tell us that they don't want folks to conflate al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is viewed as a global terror threat. The Taliban is viewed by the administration as an "indigenous extremist organization" focused on destabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan. As one administration official told NBC News, the goal is to defeat the Taliban but the goal is to DESTROY al-Qaeda. That may seem like nuance but it gets at one other debate point, which is: just how much of a national security threat is the TALIBAN.
...Don't miss John McCain on the TODAY show arguing that you can't separate al Qaeda and the Taliban. "The Taliban is making gains. Al-Qaeda will return if the Taliban takes over, not to mention the horrible things that would happen to the Afghan people if the Taliban returned to power. But they're not…I strongly disagree with those who allege they are separate problems. They've worked together in the past, they would work together in the future..."
From NBC News:
"Today, the debate over the war in Afghanistan and the war with al- Qaeda enters another stage as the president puts a spotlight on the efforts his administration (and President Bush's administration) has put into attacking al Qaeda in countries OUTSIDE of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border...It gets to the nut of the debate inside the White house: how much of the war against al Qaeda is confined to the Af-Pak region and how much of it is still global? Senior officials involved in the day-to-day terror battle tell us that they don't want folks to conflate al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is viewed as a global terror threat. The Taliban is viewed by the administration as an "indigenous extremist organization" focused on destabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan. As one administration official told NBC News, the goal is to defeat the Taliban but the goal is to DESTROY al-Qaeda. That may seem like nuance but it gets at one other debate point, which is: just how much of a national security threat is the TALIBAN.
...Don't miss John McCain on the TODAY show arguing that you can't separate al Qaeda and the Taliban. "The Taliban is making gains. Al-Qaeda will return if the Taliban takes over, not to mention the horrible things that would happen to the Afghan people if the Taliban returned to power. But they're not…I strongly disagree with those who allege they are separate problems. They've worked together in the past, they would work together in the future..."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Change I Can Believe In: Get Rid Of The Color Warning System
TW: I suppose the intent was legitimate post 9/11 in the environment of uncertainty and fear pervading the nation. But the color warning system for terror risk never really provided any value and it cannot. Raising the level risks creating a "crying wolf" mentality whereby increasingly folks pay it no attention. Lowering the risk level risks the government being accused of taking its guard down should an attack occur after the lowering. The colored threat level has not changed I do not believe in years and is stuck at orange.
The system is a essentially a forecasting tool for something we cannot forecast nearly to the degree of precision a color-coded system of gradients implies. If an attack is considered imminent with a significant degree of probability I would assume our government will act accordingly with direct warnings and preventative measures, just like they would have done without the system or pre 9-11.
From NBC:
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano today will call for a review of the color-coded threat level system, which was created in the months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The system was intended to standardize warnings of increased terror threat. Though it got a fairly good workout at first, its use has tapered off in the past few years. One reason is that the overall level of awareness -- both among the public, government, and law enforcement -- is greater now than it was before the attacks.
The review is intended to address whether the system is still needed. And, if so, whether further refinements are in order."
The system is a essentially a forecasting tool for something we cannot forecast nearly to the degree of precision a color-coded system of gradients implies. If an attack is considered imminent with a significant degree of probability I would assume our government will act accordingly with direct warnings and preventative measures, just like they would have done without the system or pre 9-11.
From NBC:
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano today will call for a review of the color-coded threat level system, which was created in the months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The system was intended to standardize warnings of increased terror threat. Though it got a fairly good workout at first, its use has tapered off in the past few years. One reason is that the overall level of awareness -- both among the public, government, and law enforcement -- is greater now than it was before the attacks.
The review is intended to address whether the system is still needed. And, if so, whether further refinements are in order."
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Separating the Takfiri From Terroristic Nationalists
TW: This piece frames a crucial issue- delineating the motives of various entities which use terrorism as a tool. Only by understanding motives can one seek to understand, address and combat the terrorists. Not all terrorists are created equally and one person's terrorist is another's revolutionary fighting unconventionally in the face of an otherwise overwhelming power. This does not excuse the use of terrorism or equate them with the target powers but it does mean dealing with the various types requires differing policies.
The takfiri (Al-Qaeda) are anarchists in many ways or at least their world would be so far away from existing structures that the result would be substantive anarchy.
From The Underreported Blog:
"After eight long years of mixing oranges and apples, the Europeans appear to have finally learned the distinctions between constituency-based and societally-active Islamist militant movements, on the one hand, and takfiri, transnational terrorist groups, on the other. The former, notably Hizbullah and Hamas, have grievances founded primarily on nationalist grounds. These grievances relate, for the most part, to their nations' loss of land in previous armed confrontations with Israel. Their overriding objective is to reclaim of these territories, as well as gain political power. The latter, however, is interested in a much grander project that finds little sympathy amongst Muslims. The Al-Qaeda-types seek to depose all heads of state in the Muslim world, get rid of foreign occupation, and establish a Caliphate system. In pursuit of these objectives, takfiri groups have no qualm about murduring every one standing in the way, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
That the differences are glaring between both camps is easy to conclude. Nevertheless, Western government have long refused to acknowledge, at least not publicly, the differences, preferring to lump all militant Islamist groups in an uneasy monloithic bloc. In some instances, non-violent Islamist parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, were thrown into the mix.
It is no secret that the aforementioned strategy have not yielded progress on any front. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon are virtually the same now as they were a few years ago.
...Could it be that the Europeans have suddenly become more nuanced in their foreign policy posture towards the Middle East, whereas the United States has not? Probably not. I think the Obama administration is already stretching the limits of its domestic constituencies by appointing an ambassador to Syria, seeking dialogue with Tehran and opposing expanding Israeli settlements. Washington may have tacitly supported this engagement process, which the US itself cannot pursue, to test the waters, and see how much can be agreed on diplomatically with Hizbullah. After all, Hizbullah is not on the EU's list of terrorist organizations..."
http://el-shimy.blogspot.com/
The takfiri (Al-Qaeda) are anarchists in many ways or at least their world would be so far away from existing structures that the result would be substantive anarchy.
From The Underreported Blog:
"After eight long years of mixing oranges and apples, the Europeans appear to have finally learned the distinctions between constituency-based and societally-active Islamist militant movements, on the one hand, and takfiri, transnational terrorist groups, on the other. The former, notably Hizbullah and Hamas, have grievances founded primarily on nationalist grounds. These grievances relate, for the most part, to their nations' loss of land in previous armed confrontations with Israel. Their overriding objective is to reclaim of these territories, as well as gain political power. The latter, however, is interested in a much grander project that finds little sympathy amongst Muslims. The Al-Qaeda-types seek to depose all heads of state in the Muslim world, get rid of foreign occupation, and establish a Caliphate system. In pursuit of these objectives, takfiri groups have no qualm about murduring every one standing in the way, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
That the differences are glaring between both camps is easy to conclude. Nevertheless, Western government have long refused to acknowledge, at least not publicly, the differences, preferring to lump all militant Islamist groups in an uneasy monloithic bloc. In some instances, non-violent Islamist parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, were thrown into the mix.
It is no secret that the aforementioned strategy have not yielded progress on any front. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon are virtually the same now as they were a few years ago.
...Could it be that the Europeans have suddenly become more nuanced in their foreign policy posture towards the Middle East, whereas the United States has not? Probably not. I think the Obama administration is already stretching the limits of its domestic constituencies by appointing an ambassador to Syria, seeking dialogue with Tehran and opposing expanding Israeli settlements. Washington may have tacitly supported this engagement process, which the US itself cannot pursue, to test the waters, and see how much can be agreed on diplomatically with Hizbullah. After all, Hizbullah is not on the EU's list of terrorist organizations..."
http://el-shimy.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Nut Up Republicans!
TW: I really try to avoid posting on every stupid thing coming out of the mouths of Republican leadership but some things demand comment. The ignorance exemplified by Boehner who is after all the House minority leader and hence a top 5 leader for the party is infuriating. We need enlightened leadership from all parties instead we get this.
Boehner et al., disregarding the fact that we have imprisoned "terrorists" of various ilks for decades in highly secure facilities and with highly sophisticated judicial processes, continue their populist pandering toward the lowest common denominator. They would rather take selected "terrorists" and stick them in a black hole somewhere rather than confront them, try them and treat them with the public contempt they deserve. This is fearful ignorance.
These same leaders advocate Hooverian approaches to the Great Contraction amongst a slew of other potentially destructive policies. Consider the source.
From NBC:
"Republicans this morning are pouncing on the news that one Gitmo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, was transferred to a federal court in New York for his alleged role in the 1998 Africa embassy bombings. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner in a statement:
This is the first step in the Democrats’ plan to import terrorists into America. Without a plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Administration has made the decision to begin transferring these terrorists into the United States, in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the American people and serious questions from Members of Congress of both parties. There are more than 200 of the world’s most dangerous men held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Does the Administration plan to transfer all of them into our nation in this way? Do they plan to give them the same legal rights as the American people? Just what is the Administration’s plan for closing this prison?
But as NBC's Pete Williams reported last month, Ghailani's transfer to stand trial in New York makes sense, given that the other defendants in the embassy bombings were tried and convicted there."
Boehner et al., disregarding the fact that we have imprisoned "terrorists" of various ilks for decades in highly secure facilities and with highly sophisticated judicial processes, continue their populist pandering toward the lowest common denominator. They would rather take selected "terrorists" and stick them in a black hole somewhere rather than confront them, try them and treat them with the public contempt they deserve. This is fearful ignorance.
These same leaders advocate Hooverian approaches to the Great Contraction amongst a slew of other potentially destructive policies. Consider the source.
From NBC:
"Republicans this morning are pouncing on the news that one Gitmo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, was transferred to a federal court in New York for his alleged role in the 1998 Africa embassy bombings. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner in a statement:
This is the first step in the Democrats’ plan to import terrorists into America. Without a plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Administration has made the decision to begin transferring these terrorists into the United States, in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the American people and serious questions from Members of Congress of both parties. There are more than 200 of the world’s most dangerous men held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Does the Administration plan to transfer all of them into our nation in this way? Do they plan to give them the same legal rights as the American people? Just what is the Administration’s plan for closing this prison?
But as NBC's Pete Williams reported last month, Ghailani's transfer to stand trial in New York makes sense, given that the other defendants in the embassy bombings were tried and convicted there."
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Conflict, Fearmongering, Simple-mindedness
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| American Idealogues | ||||
| ||||
TW: Stewart hones in- the media's insatiable desire for conflict which makes their lives so easy, the fear mongrel in chief in action and the simple-mindedness of the Cheney approach and its associated hypocrisy.
Friday, May 22, 2009
You Go Jesse!!! (cont.)
TW: These Ventura appearances keep providing substance to the debate. Listening to the admittedly lame Fox entertainers really begins to remind me of the Iraq War rationalizations, the proponents just jumped from one rationale to the next as each one lost any credibility (recall- WMD, 9-11, building democracy, protecting the Iraqis people etc.).
Here the Fox guy goes from it is not torture to it works to well we should just kill "them" all.
Torture is only a part of the overall approach to dealing with terrorism. Torture reflects some folks willingness to do anything even if it is technically illegal, contravenes longstanding American morals, is of dubious efficacy and greatly harms our reputation across the world. This trade in search of the hint of security is fundamental. Gitmo and how it is shut down feeds into the same theme- will we except any risk.
What is often missed in these debates is the cost of heading down the path of trading security for our liberties and reputation. Folks debate the efficacy and semantics of torture but not the costs. Losing our moral grounding and interanational repuatation are very serious prices to be paid. We cannot forget this.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Extremism In Defense Of Security Is a Vice
TW: Some highlights from National Review and Weekly Standard on their reactions to today's speeches. These are the mainline conservative magazines, I could not force myself to go to the real hard core sites like Red State.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
Making Our Choice
From POTUS Obama both quotes via Time:
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "
And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.
Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "
And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.
Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?
Monday, April 27, 2009
What Would We Do?
TW: Political Daily is another new entrant into the web site field. It is notable being started by refugees from MSM. Regardless, this piece intrigued not so much for its core purpose- to question the need for prosecution of torture facilitators- but for the issue of whether its background premise is valid. The piece assumes a hypothetical right-wing conservative takeover of the White House in 2012 due to a spectacular terrorist attack prior to the election.
What would happen in the event of another serious terrorist attack on the U.S.? Obviously the specific circumstances and timing would be relevant (i.e. a clear intelligence failure etc.). But would the U.S. veer so far right in the event of an attack. This has been my fear since 9/11. We have already veered far right once post 9/11, would it get even worse post a 2nd attack? I fear so.
Folks will trade much liberty for security. In many ways counter-terrorism is like crime prevention. How do you manage the risks without smothering liberties. The right especially that embodied by the Cheney wing of the Republican party is unwilling to bear almost any risk and presumably willing to blame anyone who is willing to bear the risks. The key would not be that 30% of the electorate aligned with Cheney et al. but the other 70%. How would they react?
My hope is they would maturely weigh the costs of going all in towards risk reduction. The loss of lives to spectacular terrorists are horrific. But torture, unilateral war-making, massive defense budgets and general paranoia carry economic and human costs as well. In fact those costs exceed those of any terrorist act to date including 9/11. Would our society weigh these accordingly? I doubt it.
ps Will address the core premise of the article- prosecuting a hypothetical post-terrorism official versus a real torture facilitator on a later post.
From Political Daily:
"The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.
"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."
Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.
Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/23/president-palins-quandary-to-prosecute-or-not/
What would happen in the event of another serious terrorist attack on the U.S.? Obviously the specific circumstances and timing would be relevant (i.e. a clear intelligence failure etc.). But would the U.S. veer so far right in the event of an attack. This has been my fear since 9/11. We have already veered far right once post 9/11, would it get even worse post a 2nd attack? I fear so.
Folks will trade much liberty for security. In many ways counter-terrorism is like crime prevention. How do you manage the risks without smothering liberties. The right especially that embodied by the Cheney wing of the Republican party is unwilling to bear almost any risk and presumably willing to blame anyone who is willing to bear the risks. The key would not be that 30% of the electorate aligned with Cheney et al. but the other 70%. How would they react?
My hope is they would maturely weigh the costs of going all in towards risk reduction. The loss of lives to spectacular terrorists are horrific. But torture, unilateral war-making, massive defense budgets and general paranoia carry economic and human costs as well. In fact those costs exceed those of any terrorist act to date including 9/11. Would our society weigh these accordingly? I doubt it.
ps Will address the core premise of the article- prosecuting a hypothetical post-terrorism official versus a real torture facilitator on a later post.
From Political Daily:
"The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.
"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."
Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.
Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/23/president-palins-quandary-to-prosecute-or-not/
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Terrorism About Which I Worry
TW: I concur with Klein. The type terrorist attacks I have always considered most likely are where heavily armed folks start shooting or exploding things amidst crowds (a mall, stadium, crowded street, airport check-in, schools etc.). This is what happened in Mumbai, the ease with which motivated (i.e. suicidal) terrorists could pull off such acts is not particularly high I would think regardless of security measures. This would essentially be Columbine on steroids.
The manic means by which American media and the public reacts to domestic sourced shootings overlaid with the emotion associated with "terrorism" would lead to a populist trauma that would have little bounds. Such trauma is exactly what the terrorists would be seeking of course.
"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for [the recent] horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me.
...The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/31/terrors-next-wave/
The manic means by which American media and the public reacts to domestic sourced shootings overlaid with the emotion associated with "terrorism" would lead to a populist trauma that would have little bounds. Such trauma is exactly what the terrorists would be seeking of course.
There will come a time when Americans have to face up to sacrificing tremendous liberty in a likely futile effort to limit any losses to terrorists or learn how to absorb the risk and move on with their lives.
From Joe Klein at Time:"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for [the recent] horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me.
...The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/31/terrors-next-wave/
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Bush Used 9/11 To Diminish America
TW: I find myself so frustrated with this POTUS that I am reduced to mere spluttering.
Why? Because he represents to me the worst of America. He took our country backward, for the first time in my life I could feel our nation truly regressing: economically, culturally and certainly internationally. Bush's final press conference focused primarily on 9/11 and appropriately so as Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to foul our political system.
From Vanity Fair:
"Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel: After 9/11 the administration faced two sharply conflicting imperatives. The first was fear of another attack. This permeated the administration. Everyone felt it. And it led to the doctrine of pre-emption, which has many guises, but basically means that you can’t wait for the usual amounts of information before acting on a threat because it may be too late. They were really scared. They were afraid of what they didn’t know. They were very afraid they didn’t have the tools to meet the threat. And they had this extraordinary sense of responsibility—that they would be responsible for the next attack. They really thought of it as having blood on their hands, and that they’d be forgiven once but not twice. On the other hand, there was a countervailing imperative, and that was the law, because there had grown up since the 70s—for a lot of good reasons—some extraordinary restrictions on presidential power and presidential war power, many of them embodied in criminal laws, many of them vague or uncertain, never having been applied before, certainly none of them ever applied in this new context. And there was enormous legal uncertainty about how far we could go."
TW: When 9/11 happened someone remarked that I must be happy we have such a strong leader in the White House amidst the turmoil. My response was that 9/11 was exactly why the election of Bush was so detrimental. Having John Ashcroft as Attorney General, Dick Cheney as VP and Bush as POTUS amidst a disorienting crisis was a recipe for disaster, and those cooks certainly wrecked the kitchen.
From Economist 9/15/2001 issue, the first post 9/11:
"...This week has changed America, and with it the world, once again.
In the immediate aftermath, the United States showed signs of what makes it great. In so many ways, and for understandable reasons, it had been unprepared to face such evil...At home, Americans felt safe, in a way they never will again: it made this week’s enormity all the more terrible. Despite everything, the country rallied. Across the United States, people have queued to give blood, to offer help. Airports and stock markets have been closed, but there is an urgent desire to return to normality, to carry on and not be cowed. In the country at large there is nothing of hysteria or panic. The mood is grief, purpose, unity, and anger under control. That is admirable...
The testing, however, has barely begun...in circumstances hardly conducive to rational analysis, an adequate response to the atrocities must be framed. That is the greatest challenge of all. It must not be a task that the United States undertakes alone...a new balance between liberty and security may have to be struck more broadly...Just where this balance will be struck, or should be struck in a liberal democracy, remains unclear...
...Lastly comes the question which is uppermost in most minds, the most treacherous question of all—that of retaliation. The problem is not merely that the American authorities still seem unsure who is to blame...
America and the West—again, in their own interests—must recognise and reflect upon the hostility they face in parts of the world. Scenes of Palestinians and other Muslims celebrating this week’s horrors may seem an unendurable provocation, but America must take care in the coming days that it does not create more would-be martyrs than, through military action, it can destroy. The strategy—easier said than done, to put it mildly—must be to make friends with opponents who are capable of reason, while moving firmly against those who are both incapable of it and willing to resort to, or assist in, acts such as those seen this week. The response of America and its allies should not be timid, but it should be measured..."
TW: We as a nation over-reacted to 9/11 turning a huge tragedy into an existential event driving us toward unfortunate, irrational and ultimately ineffective decisions. The Economist detected after only a few months of the Bush presidency the "inclusiveness" they had hoped for in Bush was in fact going to be tossed aside not only domestically but internationally in the aftermath of 9/11, they were spot on. Economist surfaced the risks of merely flailing in anger or incompetence at supposed enemies in the Middle East.
Bush/Cheney/Rove et al. used 9/11 as a carte blanche to trample liberties and embark upon the neo-con agenda of spreading "American democracy" with a religious zeal doomed to failure. Regardless of their motives, this approach has led the U.S. down a path of ineffectiveness the costs of which will resonate for decades.
There was always a fundamental dissonance in the Bush reaction to 9/11, on one hand it was existential requiring diminished liberties and pre-emptive war, while on the other no direct economic or national sacrifice. We spent hundreds of billions (ultimately likely $2+ trillion) invading Iraq and on massive homeland security initiatives, whilst cutting taxes (primarily for the wealthy) and urging Americans to go on with their lives as if little had changed.
There is a cost to wrongly invading countries, wrongly torturing folks while borrowing the funds to do so. There is a moral cost and their is an economic cost.
One can imagine alternative scenarios whereby the U.S. either exercised restraint or acted multi-laterally or actually faced up to the challenges and demanded sacrifice either financially or through a draft (a subject for a different post but I have no doubt that Iraq would have never happened with a draftee force which should make one pause).
One can also imagine scenarios whereby instead of waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 at every turn, our leaders had taken the path moving on. Terror takes two to be effective- the perpetrator and the victim. The Bush approach fed America's victimization mentality while feeding the terrorists yearning for psychological impact. To the extent 9/11 would have been absorbed without altering massive aspects of our lives, the impact of the crime would have been minimized and more importantly the future probability of another attack reduced.
Why? Because he represents to me the worst of America. He took our country backward, for the first time in my life I could feel our nation truly regressing: economically, culturally and certainly internationally. Bush's final press conference focused primarily on 9/11 and appropriately so as Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to foul our political system.
From Vanity Fair:
"Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel: After 9/11 the administration faced two sharply conflicting imperatives. The first was fear of another attack. This permeated the administration. Everyone felt it. And it led to the doctrine of pre-emption, which has many guises, but basically means that you can’t wait for the usual amounts of information before acting on a threat because it may be too late. They were really scared. They were afraid of what they didn’t know. They were very afraid they didn’t have the tools to meet the threat. And they had this extraordinary sense of responsibility—that they would be responsible for the next attack. They really thought of it as having blood on their hands, and that they’d be forgiven once but not twice. On the other hand, there was a countervailing imperative, and that was the law, because there had grown up since the 70s—for a lot of good reasons—some extraordinary restrictions on presidential power and presidential war power, many of them embodied in criminal laws, many of them vague or uncertain, never having been applied before, certainly none of them ever applied in this new context. And there was enormous legal uncertainty about how far we could go."
TW: When 9/11 happened someone remarked that I must be happy we have such a strong leader in the White House amidst the turmoil. My response was that 9/11 was exactly why the election of Bush was so detrimental. Having John Ashcroft as Attorney General, Dick Cheney as VP and Bush as POTUS amidst a disorienting crisis was a recipe for disaster, and those cooks certainly wrecked the kitchen.
From Economist 9/15/2001 issue, the first post 9/11:
"...This week has changed America, and with it the world, once again.
In the immediate aftermath, the United States showed signs of what makes it great. In so many ways, and for understandable reasons, it had been unprepared to face such evil...At home, Americans felt safe, in a way they never will again: it made this week’s enormity all the more terrible. Despite everything, the country rallied. Across the United States, people have queued to give blood, to offer help. Airports and stock markets have been closed, but there is an urgent desire to return to normality, to carry on and not be cowed. In the country at large there is nothing of hysteria or panic. The mood is grief, purpose, unity, and anger under control. That is admirable...
The testing, however, has barely begun...in circumstances hardly conducive to rational analysis, an adequate response to the atrocities must be framed. That is the greatest challenge of all. It must not be a task that the United States undertakes alone...a new balance between liberty and security may have to be struck more broadly...Just where this balance will be struck, or should be struck in a liberal democracy, remains unclear...
...Lastly comes the question which is uppermost in most minds, the most treacherous question of all—that of retaliation. The problem is not merely that the American authorities still seem unsure who is to blame...
America and the West—again, in their own interests—must recognise and reflect upon the hostility they face in parts of the world. Scenes of Palestinians and other Muslims celebrating this week’s horrors may seem an unendurable provocation, but America must take care in the coming days that it does not create more would-be martyrs than, through military action, it can destroy. The strategy—easier said than done, to put it mildly—must be to make friends with opponents who are capable of reason, while moving firmly against those who are both incapable of it and willing to resort to, or assist in, acts such as those seen this week. The response of America and its allies should not be timid, but it should be measured..."
TW: We as a nation over-reacted to 9/11 turning a huge tragedy into an existential event driving us toward unfortunate, irrational and ultimately ineffective decisions. The Economist detected after only a few months of the Bush presidency the "inclusiveness" they had hoped for in Bush was in fact going to be tossed aside not only domestically but internationally in the aftermath of 9/11, they were spot on. Economist surfaced the risks of merely flailing in anger or incompetence at supposed enemies in the Middle East.
Bush/Cheney/Rove et al. used 9/11 as a carte blanche to trample liberties and embark upon the neo-con agenda of spreading "American democracy" with a religious zeal doomed to failure. Regardless of their motives, this approach has led the U.S. down a path of ineffectiveness the costs of which will resonate for decades.
There was always a fundamental dissonance in the Bush reaction to 9/11, on one hand it was existential requiring diminished liberties and pre-emptive war, while on the other no direct economic or national sacrifice. We spent hundreds of billions (ultimately likely $2+ trillion) invading Iraq and on massive homeland security initiatives, whilst cutting taxes (primarily for the wealthy) and urging Americans to go on with their lives as if little had changed.
There is a cost to wrongly invading countries, wrongly torturing folks while borrowing the funds to do so. There is a moral cost and their is an economic cost.
One can imagine alternative scenarios whereby the U.S. either exercised restraint or acted multi-laterally or actually faced up to the challenges and demanded sacrifice either financially or through a draft (a subject for a different post but I have no doubt that Iraq would have never happened with a draftee force which should make one pause).
One can also imagine scenarios whereby instead of waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 at every turn, our leaders had taken the path moving on. Terror takes two to be effective- the perpetrator and the victim. The Bush approach fed America's victimization mentality while feeding the terrorists yearning for psychological impact. To the extent 9/11 would have been absorbed without altering massive aspects of our lives, the impact of the crime would have been minimized and more importantly the future probability of another attack reduced.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: Stop Talking About GWOT And the Homeland
TW: Joe Klein has another good idea- get rid of the GWOT (global war on terror) term. I would add a second get rid of the use of "Homeland" within the context of defending the U.S. against terror etc. Homeland has an Orwellian reek that has always bothered me. It also creates an inward focus that engenders jingoistic populism and excessive navel gazing.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"One of the more interesting decisions Barack Obama has to make is what he's going to call the struggle against terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Bush called it the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which gave him rhetorical leave to do all sorts of warlike, over-the-top and inappropriate things, like invade Iraq--an act that aggrandized Al Qaeda, enabling it to set up, for a moment, an Iraqi branch.
...Britain's Foreign Minister David Miliband says not only that we shouldn't call it the GWOT--the Brits stopped doing so in 2006--but that the whole thing was a big mistake, creating more potential terrorists than it eliminated.
I have a feeling--no reporting, just a feeling--that we've heard the last of the Global War on Terror on this side of the Atlantic as well. Not that Obama won't continue the campaign against Al Qaeda, including the successful predator strikes against terrorist leaders along the Pakistan border (which are proceeding despite the public "dismay" of the Pakistani government because the Pakistanis are privately cooperating with and approving the targeting).
But the era of grandiloquent "terrorism is the greatest existential challenge of the twentieth century" rhetoric is over. The terrorist challenge will resume its more natural place in the heirarchy of foreign policy problems--at the top of the list, but not overwhelmingly so. We'll see whether Obama tips his hand in this direction in his Inaugural speech."
From Joe Klein at Time:
"One of the more interesting decisions Barack Obama has to make is what he's going to call the struggle against terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Bush called it the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which gave him rhetorical leave to do all sorts of warlike, over-the-top and inappropriate things, like invade Iraq--an act that aggrandized Al Qaeda, enabling it to set up, for a moment, an Iraqi branch.
...Britain's Foreign Minister David Miliband says not only that we shouldn't call it the GWOT--the Brits stopped doing so in 2006--but that the whole thing was a big mistake, creating more potential terrorists than it eliminated.
I have a feeling--no reporting, just a feeling--that we've heard the last of the Global War on Terror on this side of the Atlantic as well. Not that Obama won't continue the campaign against Al Qaeda, including the successful predator strikes against terrorist leaders along the Pakistan border (which are proceeding despite the public "dismay" of the Pakistani government because the Pakistanis are privately cooperating with and approving the targeting).
But the era of grandiloquent "terrorism is the greatest existential challenge of the twentieth century" rhetoric is over. The terrorist challenge will resume its more natural place in the heirarchy of foreign policy problems--at the top of the list, but not overwhelmingly so. We'll see whether Obama tips his hand in this direction in his Inaugural speech."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)