The facts about the attempted car bomb attack at Times Square are only emerging. We will certainly know more about the perpetrators very soon. Let’s assume, for the moment, that the Pakistani Tehreek e Taliban are not just claiming to be behind what they say is a revenge attack, but that they actually are. How should the US government react?
Steve Coll over at the New Yorker just posted a thought-provoking short piece on his blog. He argues that the Obama Administration now has an opportunity “to atone” for some of the mistakes in its public communication following the Christmas Day attack. Obama should, Coll suggests, “start talking back to terrorists everywhere in a more resilient, sustainable language than he has yet discovered.” Example:
They intend to frighten us; we are not frightened. They intend to kill and maim; we will bring them to justice. They intend to attract attention for their extremist views; the indiscriminate nature of their violence only discredits and isolates them. They intend to disrupt us and throw us into fits of media-saturated hysteria; we will remain vigilant, but we will also keep their unsuccessful attempted murder in perspective.
Well, that’s tricky. Doing so could be a risky move that could have just the opposite effect. Coll himself says that the Christmas bombing was “more serious.” So where should the line be drawn? Bizzarre al-Qaeda tapes already provoke reactions by senior US politicians. What seems to be an amateurish attack may do more: create significant political pressure for the administration. Political opponents might soon repeat their point that the administration is defenseless and soft on terror, even if there is probably not a lot of substance to such criticisms.
The problem with all this is that the terrorists, whoever they turn out to be, have an overarching interest in provoking attention and creating fear. True, domestic terrorism constitutes a serious threat. No, not a strategic or existential one. So therefore a failed, amateurish plot should not be treated like a strategic threat. It should not get more attention than it deserves. If it does, the subtext will be clearly understood by extremists everywhere: America is frightened.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
What struck me about this, coming on the heels of the “underwear bomber” is what utter buffoons the terrorists are. This is not to say they might get lucky or that we should not take them seriously, but American pundits and politicians (such as the Cheneys) who claim they are the most dangerous enemy the West has faced are simply wrong. I think the appropriate response is ridicule.
Seems to be a trend in the decline of sophistication. The Madrid bombing of 2004 was less sophisticated than 9/11. The London subway bombings in 2005 were less sophisticated than Madrid. And the plots foiled in Germany, in Canada, and at Heathrow Airport in the summer of 2006 were all less sophisticated than the London bombings.
The level of ‘doofusness’ does not reduce the threat, indeed the proliferation, commitment and repeated attempts actually make the case such chicanery IS the most dangerous threat to the West
This article suggests that it’s actually quite difficult to set up a decent explosive device: http://allthingsct.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/a-note-on-the-failed-vbied-in-times-square/
Assuming that it is an Islamist attack.. I’ve read round and about that al-Qa’ida is becoming more autonomous. If that article is correct, then more autonomy is going to mean less technical expertise.
In other words, the trend is likely to continue.
And not to hone too fine a point on it – as best understood – the nasty device in NYC is almost identical to the Hiz’B'Allah attacks that murdered hundreds of Teufel Hunden and French truppen in Lebanon eons ago.
I agree with Steve Metz.. I don’t understand why (from a British perspective) the National Security Strategy Update says that “the threat by individuals and groups linked to or inspired by al-Qa’ida continues to represent the pre-eminent terrorist threat to the UK and our interests,” when in a similar fashion to the failed attack on New York, the last car-bomb attack by Islamists on the UK the perpetrators failed, utterly. Not only that, they got a Glaswegian kiss for their efforts.
I agree with Dr. Metz. It’s striking how uncoordinated, ill-conceived, and amateurish these recent plots seem. From “butt bombs”, to underwear bombs, and now this.
While we must NEVER underestimate the enemy, giving terrorists too much credit for their debacles only serves their purpose–spreading terror and disorder.
Bombings, even attempted bombings, generate much attention. To stop that attention would require silencing the press. We don’t want to do that.
Any attack, attempted or otherwise, demands action, from law enforcement to the military.
Trying to dismiss or mitigate the seriousness of the attempt by calling it “amateurish” is to me a not-so-veiled attempt at delegitimizing any response. After all, how can you take a threat seriously when he burned his nads off in the attempt. IED’s are crude, as is driving a fuel-filled vehicle and crashing it into an airport terminal (or trying too). But in all cases, amateurish or not, the potential deadly effects are enormous.
Basically, not all bomb makers are good at what they do (Richard Reid, he couldn’t even light a match stuck between his toes), and not all cowardly mass murderers use military-grade explosives (Timothy McVey). Some attempts succeed, some fail, but the aim is to murder, and murder, attempted or otherwise, demands a serious and focused response.
Many wanna-be Little Miss Bad-Boys wants to claim the deed. Investigate and find out if they are responsible. If not, ignore them, they are just noise. For the one responsible, take appropriate action. To turn a blind eye to the threat is to invite more attacks, and even a weak response would be counter-productive. We discovered that post 9-11 when we found out OBL was emboldened to attack because of weak US responses to previous terror attacks (“paper tiger,” “Clinton response”).
Because some attempts don’t appear to be well planned or executed is of no matter, the fact remains a deadly serious attempt in Times Square was made to murder indiscriminately. Add the adage “practice makes perfect,” and are you willing to bet your life, or the life of a loved one, that the next attack may not work out in the terrorists favor?
“Any attack, attempted or otherwise, demands action, from law enforcement to the military. ”
Fair point but what should be done and where that is not already being done now?
Now that is an important question.
Since you asked, IMHO, we need to find out who did this and then we proceed from there.
If the terrorist is a local home-grown anarchist, law enforcement (FBI) would be the course of action.
If it becomes clear that a radical Islamist is responsible, then we find him and kill him and go after his movement, relentlessly. We should give no indication of weakness of resolve because if we do,”they” draw strength from that and push harder and longer.
The difference between what I suggest and what is already being done is stark. Obama is showing signs of weakness. His lack of resolve, his weakness of purpose is clear as Obama wishes to treat every terrorist like a criminal suspect, unless, of course, they are in Pakistan and a Predator strike is used. Odd.
“Obama is showing signs of weakness. His lack of resolve, his weakness of purpose is clear as Obama wishes to treat every terrorist like a criminal suspect, unless, of course, they are in Pakistan and a Predator strike is used. Odd.”
Only part I disagree with you really.
See- that’s ALL they are really. Just common criminals. The idea that by calling them terrorists you give their cause legitimacy is valid. Most of the Middle East know that so-called Islamist groups are dangerous, violent morons, who twist Islam so far out of whack it would be laughably funny to see if they were not armed. But the idea that organisations such as AQ can be seen as ‘freedom fighters’ comes from them being called so by us. When we say ‘terrorist’ that is what we say.
In the end there are plenty of people who will resort to violence to get their political desires. The cause is unimportant- religion, nationalism, frustration, a feeling of helplessness. Whatever the cause the end result is always the same- people who cannot get their way via dialogue resorting to violence.
I agree our stance must be uniform and total- defending ourselves against such people with enough force that one hope they agree to cease violence and return to the table to talk.
But having grown up within a hard line Irish republican community in Ulster, I know that communities which spawn such extremists thrive in the face of verbal condemnation by the ‘enemy’. It gives legitimacy to those who use the violence. It suggests the enemy is afarid- the very word and its use says ‘they are scared off us’ (direct quote out of my youth).
The last thing a terrorist wants is to be sent to jail with rapists, child molesters and murderers. In their eyes they are special. Their cause is unique. This was one of the driving forces behind the ‘Dirty Protests’ of the pIRA prisoners in the Maze prison (and away from that headline grabbing protest- the murders of prison guards and hunger strikes). For the pIRA to be treated as criminals- common prisoners, just like everyone else, was seen as a series blow against the organisation. Why else would members be willing to smear themselves in their own bodily waste, and eventually starve themselves to death in order to get their ‘political’ (special) status returned? Yes its just PR – but its powerful PR.
So, let us look at AQ shall we? A violent extremist group who cannot find support in virtually ALL mainstream Muslim nations. Whose image of being freedom fighters against oppressive America is shown how? By being so dangerous they get their own secret jail, on a small spit of land, in a seperate country to the USA. Where they are tortured and detained without trial. Where they are clearly special and feared by America.
I believe honestly, that Hawks within the DoD ended up forcing the US into a corner due to ignorance in how one deals with so-called ‘terrorists’. All Obama has done really is take away this most potent political weapon from AQ (or TRIED to- I am not saying he is successful nor saying that the issue is a clearly black and white as space dictates I make this post out to be- just raising the point that the tactic is not based in cowardice or weakness, but it extreme contempt and cold anger).
You make some interesting and valid points to be considered.
I do have a couple of small points.
For clarification: “. . .the idea that organizations such as AQ can be seen as ‘freedom fighters’ comes from them being called so by us.” There are very few in the US that refer to AQ as ‘freedom fighters.” In fact, I can’t recall off-hand anyone of legitimate influence on US policy-making referring to them as such. To me, those that refer to them in that way are usually of the “shoe on the other foot” type; you know, relativists that believe “one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.” Moral relativist arguments like that muddy needlessly the moral clarity waters.
Another point, for clarification: “By being so dangerous they get their own secret jail, on a small spit of land, in a seperate country to the USA. Where they are tortured and detained without trial. Where they are clearly special and feared by America.” Such are the requirements of law. If we take these prisoners, these unlawful combatants, onto US soil they are protected fully by all aspects of civil due process. A situation like that is to make a mockery of justice and erase any distinction between their evil acts of war with some local jewelry thief. Besides, the whole process of burden of proof, confronting your accuser (and the person that “arrested” you), reading of rights, evidentiary processes, etc., would grind the wheels of justice to a halt. That is why military tribunals are so important and an opportunity missed. These terrorists are not “feared” by Americans, they are loathed. Most Americans would just as well have the terrorists held by the Afghanistan government than have to deal with them at Gitmo or in US custody anywhere. However, most of the “world” would object to the potential of abuse of the terrorists by the Afghani government, and it is clear the prisoners prefer Gitmo over any other detention facility in the world.
Final clarification: “I believe honestly, that Hawks within the DoD ended up forcing the US into a corner due to ignorance in how one deals with so-called ‘terrorists’.” The DoD does not make public policy. The DoD executes the mission in accordance with the CINC’s direction. The DoD are experts in the rules of war and the legal processes of detention of legal and illegal combatants. I suggest the “ignorance” was a direct result of the politicalization of the process by politicians more concerned about mollifying world opinion than ensuring justice be done. Politicians, in my opinion, subverted nation security in a misguided attempt to mitigate left-wing rage over detention of terrorists.
Gunrunner: I was not clear in my original reply- I myself do not believe nor have issue with the detaining of AQ operatives in Cuba, nor do I think the USA is afraid of AQ members. Rather I was suggesting how said issue is ‘spun’ and perceived by our foes. Sorry I was not clear.
Internment is a double edged sword- it has been proven to work, and has worked for America in the past (for example in the Philippines or in Cuba last century), but regardless of its military effectiveness it does carry with it significant cost in terms of how one is seen by the rest of the world. Internment camps do allow us to take out numbers of the enemy, but also can be used to hand the enemy victories in regards to recruitment and perpetuation of their campaign of violence. There is no moral argument that can justify internment; it is a rather brilliant weapon that several nations have used over the years to strangle insurgent groups from Africa to Asia to Europe. But there is too much stigma, too much history with its use to be realistic to expect to use the tactic AND retain the moral high ground.
The previous administration in the White House did not appear to care, and the current administration does appear to care but has discovered that like much here, nice sweet liberal sensibilities tend to run headlong into the brick wall that is the complicated nature of the issues raised by the very use of internment. Or in other words, it’s easy to start using internment, but really complicated to end it. No matter how you wish to end it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Whack the perpetrators and let your actions communicate, but don’t use the event for political purposes by whipping up hysteria.
“If it becomes clear that a radical Islamist is responsible, then we find him and kill him and go after his movement, relentlessly.”
Isnt that being done already? What more can be done apart from upping the number of actions currently going on?
I suggest it is not already being done. The last paragraph of my post outlines my persepctive on that.
Upping the effort would be a great improvement, I think, rather than sending mixed and weak signals as to your resolve.
Ok, so more drone strikes, more troops on the ground, more people in prison and detention camps etc, more private contractors, stuff like that or something else?
Im guessing from what your saying there needs to be an escalation of the US response/position/forces etc.
Yes.
So how many more troops, should they increase their numbers in Pakistan? Im guessing you would be agreeable to strikes on Iran? Obviously more troops on the ground in Afgahnistan as well.
In fact Im guessing your not much of a fan of COIN and prefer the direct military option of invasion and occupation given what you say.
So would you be agreeable to say just outright occupation of Afghanistan, possibly Pakistan and attacks on Iran, obviously with the goal of being in the region permanently and to dominate?
“So how many more troops, should they increase their numbers in Pakistan?”
That would be determined by an independent and thoughtful analysis conducted by force planners on the COCOM staff.
Regarding the rest of your post. . .paint much with that broad brush?
:-)
Im just trying to see what your motivation are.
Given that the actions you often endorse are part of a particular model of response I am interested to see what you think will happen in the area, what kind of outcomes such responses will generate and how far such response need to go.
As for the anti COIN thing, its ok if you are, COIN is no more of a magic panacea than anything else and I dont necessarily disagree with all of your views (I dont agree with some though) and its obvious that you have a consistent worldview (one common to the current US approach) and as you share your opinions here (as do we all) its interesting to see what you think the outcome will be of all this.
As for the broad brush, its not so broad, like I said you have endorsed a particular viewpoint which in itself is somewhat broad (US strategic goals for the region) and reiterate common themes and views that dovetail with those goals so I am just extrapolating ahead of you but correct me if I was wrong in my assessment of your large scale viewpoint on the issue.
At the end of it you have a viewpoint similar to many of those in past (and current) counterinsurgency efforts, that of a military mind not happy with the situation of the insurgency, not happy with COIN and the process in itself and seeking to introduce or impose solutions which you think will be more successful.
Fair enough.
I’ll be in London next, week and if you wish to discuss over a coffee, I’d be pleased to do so.
Id love to but im not in London, try Wellington NZ. Not heading down this way are you? Your number two military man was here last week.
But you can email me if youd like to continue the discussion.
The term Terrorist is often used in a highly subjective manner, in a sense that it depicts condemnation by a community, of the act that had given rise to the use. Likewise, those communities that condone this act at any level, may choose not to use the term, opting instead to use terms such as “Freedom Fighter” in an attempt to diminish the criminality associated with the Terrorist term. This operationalisation issue is unlikely to change with the creation of an internationally accepted legal definition of Terrorism – though it would strengthen the position of international organisations, should we finally succeed in achieving such international acceptance.
This does not mean that we’re completely at sea regarding the definition or description of Terrorism. In 1994, The UN General Assembly stated the following in relation to Terrorism in A/RES/49/60 I.3:
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.
We could learn from an analysis of this paragraph:
a) We see in the first instance that an act of Terrorism is a criminal act. When the act is conducted within the national borders of a state, the test would be if the act contravenes National, Regional or Local laws or precedents, by commission, omission or possession. If the act is performed outside the borders of a state, the test would be if the act contravenes an International Convention, Protocol or Resolution relating to the high seas, aviation, or transfer of technology or materials. In a number of cases, the act will contravene International as well as National law. It is important to understand that in this test, the laws of the state on whose soil the act was committed, are applicable – and member states are urged in the same document to cooperate with the target state in II.5.(b): To ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of their national law.
b) We also see that the act must have a political purpose. As such, it is a criminal act that attempts to prescribe values to a society – though lacking legitimacy (or acceptance of authority) within that society, as well as internationally (by virtue of this and other resolutions). Terrorists are therefore not afforded any political status and can be categorised independently of Insurgents (rebels having internal legitimacy or support, yet lacking international legitimacy); as well as belligerents within a civil war (having both internal and international acceptance).
c) We finally see that the act is intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public. The right to describe an act of criminal violence as an act of Terrorism is therefore solely the right of the target group. Consider the following example: a bomb is detonated on a crowded train in CityOne, Country-A. As a result, the citizens of CityOne refrain from using public transport for a period of time, being fearful of repeat attacks. The citizens of CityTwo, Country-B, rejoicing at the success of their “Freedom Fighter” brethren, are logically not entitled to deny that this act was an instance of Terrorism. Unless they also show a reluctance to use public transport for a period as a result, they did not experience terror and are therefore logically compelled to accept the description of Country-A. Moral indignation is the sole property of the innocent target audience.
What is the bottom line? We should not hesitate to operationalise an act of Terrorism as such. Failing to do so will depreciate the value of international cooperation, the need to identify the organisations responsible, as well as potential sponsors on what is essentially an international tendency. Regarding the Times Square attack, the US is obliged to make this distinction. If the US doesn’t make this distinction, it would represent a lost opportunity and complicate the legality of possible responses. Besides, from a scientific perspective: not recognising this as an Act of Terrorism for whatever reason, will not make it less so.
Terrorism is an attempt to establish an asymmetrical political dialogue, based on coercion as the medium. It is essential to reply. But with that, a word of caution: Terrorists seek to capitalise on the “backlash” – being a disproportionate response that cannot directly be linked to the act and the perpetrators. Terrorists seek those headlines that show innocent civilians carrying their dead children out of rubble – and view it as a victory (and a justification for their deeds). The US must respond to this atrocity without killing people that had nothing to do with this atrocity or destroying their property. Moral indignation is the sole property of the innocent target audience.
Very interesting.
“Terrorists seek to capitalize on the ‘backlash’ – being a disproportionate response that cannot directly be linked to the act and the perpetrators. ”
Interesting take. Then why all the Little Miss Wanna-be Bad-Guys claiming to be the perpetrator of such evil acts if not to raise their profile and increase their stature? Why engage in such an act at all?
Perhaps I missed your point, first you say the terrorists commit an act that can’t be directly linked to them, but then you go on to say: “Terrorists seek those headlines that show innocent civilians carrying their dead children out of rubble – and view it as a victory (and a justification for their deeds). ”
How can you justify your action if you don’t clearly claim said action?
Yes, they do seek the headlines and the best response to that is to avoid taking the bait. Terrorists parade bodies all the time when in fact, there is no way to determine who’s act resulted in what deaths. Further, speaking with several Army as well as Air Force on the ground in theater, the terrorists routinely murder and then claim the deaths as a result of US actions. Okay, we all know about this, but why is it there is so little reporting and investigation by the “world” on this common practice? Why is it that all claims of unwarranted deaths are received uncritically by major media (and others)? Perhaps the clouded thinking of the moral relativists make moral judgment calls so difficult?
Basically, terrorist acts require a response and the US responds in the nation’s best interests, not the interest of some organization cobbled together made up primarily of nations that know no bounds to their tyranny or hypocrisy (Iran and women’s rights. . .really?).
“The US must respond to this atrocity without killing people that had nothing to do with this atrocity or destroying their property.”
Always our aim, regardless of the bleating from the terrorists and their enablers in the media.
“Moral indignation is the sole property of the innocent target audience.”
Indignant, I am. Outraged as well.
Gunrunner: With these organisations it is worth considering that they do not rate victory in terms of ‘defeating their foe’ as we do. For such organisations being able to continue operations, even on a limited scale, is a significant victory.
It’s like a feedback loop- acts of pathetic brutality are designed to engage a response. Does AQ think it can honestly force a change in Middle East policy from the USA? I for one doubt it. But they can force the Americans to do just enough to drive maybe one or two newcomers into their ranks and facilitate operations ongoing for a while. And there they have ‘won’.
In dealing with ‘terrorism’ and those willing to use violence upon innocents in order to achieve their political aims, we have to ‘hate smart’. Yes, we must respond with absolute unyielding ferocity to defend the men, women and children who are most likely to be their victims, but we must never see this ‘battlefield’ as one where moral absolutes are useful. In fact they are not useful. Dialogue and diplomacy are weapons in this fight. Not weakness. If you simplify actions against those who engage in such acts you basically do what they want.
They require simplification in order to gain said victories. Thus the paradox- what appears to be weakness is actually an attack. By not fulfilling their agenda, by not playing the role they demand we play, we starve them of their victory.
This being said, it means no matter what policy we take, they will find an advantage. And no matter what policy we take, we will also inflict damage upon them. It’s that kind of conflict- for both sides, for every ‘victory’ there is a ‘defeat’.
A recent comment by one of the Joint Chiefs on a separate, unrelated issue, stands out for me. He basically said that the military and President have been engaged in almost constant dialogue, on a near daily basis, over the issue of nuclear proliferation in Iran. That if there was a simple solution to that issue, they would have found it and used it- and by extension there is no simple solution to the problem.
When faced with criminals who would use violence to gain their political aims, we must face this reality as well. There are no simplistic solutions. There can be no moral absolutes. We must be prepared to use weapons we do not agree with- be it predator strikes without warning, or changes in language, or diplomacy, or even old fashioned PR or even detention without trial (internment). Above all, in this conflict, ‘victory’ can only be classified as our foes ‘ceasing operations against us’. Short of unlikely event literally killing every single one of them, this means ultimately, we will have to sit down with them. Some folks cannot cope with such a prospect. And that’s OK- I see good reasons for never sitting down and negotiating with terrorists. It’s just that until you do, the conflict never ends.
Also worth considering: latest reports SUGGEST (not conclusive) that the Time’s Square culprit may have been American and white. The debate about ‘domestic terrorism’ is not for me a debate at all. If the definition of a terrorist is anyone who uses violence in any form, to achieve their political means, then the scope for what qualifies as a domestic terrorist or an enabler of terrorism changes as well. By said definition there are a bevy of UK based animal ‘rights’ protestors who would need to be labelled as such, and perhaps political groups within the US. And therein is the crux of our debate. To call Middle Class White folks ‘terrorists’ is a stigma and hurts their cause. To call AQ ‘terrorists’ is the opposite, and has a counter effect.
Quick post and run. . .have to go to the Hill and right now, some “suspicious” package on Thomas Circle is making a mess of things. Yuck.
Anyway, quickly; “Also worth considering: latest reports SUGGEST (not conclusive) that the Time’s Square culprit may have been American and white. ”
Still possible he is muslim, as well all know muslim is not race or a nationality.
Of course, could be the Amish at it again. . .the Amish are known to be really nasty when you make fun of their horse and buggies. ;-)
Got to go. Back later.
@Gunrunner:
To clarify “Terrorists seek to capitalise on the ‘backlash’ – being a disproportionate response that cannot directly be linked to the act and the perpetrators.” I’m not referring to the original Terror Act, but rather to the Response to it. In doing that, I’m hoping to draw attention to the point that such a response forms a significant portion of the Terrorist’s victory conditions.
Gunrunner: I also disagree with the contention that “Obama is showing signs of weakness. His lack of resolve, his weakness of purpose is clear as Obama wishes to treat every terrorist like a criminal suspect, unless, of course, they are in Pakistan and a Predator strike is used.” He has simply avoided the over heated and often ridiculous rhetoric of the Bush administration. I felt all along that Bush badly wanted to be Reagan. And to be Reagan, he needed a big enemy like the Soviet Union. Since there wasn’t one available, he simply over-inflated the enemy that was available. There was no world war so he invented one.
“Gunrunner: I also disagree”
Join the long queue and take a number. ;-)
“He has simply avoided the over heated and often ridiculous rhetoric of the Bush administration.”
Of that I disagree. Speaking of end-dates without any consideration as to the morale boost that is sent to the terrorists is counter-productive and threatens US national security. Talking about withdrawal without clearly stating what strategic objectives must be achieved first is political pandering at the expense of national security. To those that respect force and engage in mass murder, plitical pandering by Obama sends clear signals of weakness and a lack of resolve.
“I felt all along that Bush badly wanted to be Reagan.”
All true conservatives wish to emulate Reagan. I see no problem there.
“And to be Reagan, he needed a big enemy like the Soviet Union. Since there wasn’t one available, he simply over-inflated the enemy that was available. There was no world war so he invented one.”
I have to disagree strongly. The fact that 9-11 happened easily dismisses any claim he “over-inflated” and “invented” a deadly enemy of the United States. The mass murder and destruction that took place on 9-11 was not over-stated or invented, unless you are one of those ’9-11 truther’ nut-jobs. To allege President Bush acted merely to satisfy some yearning for relevance is to misread the man’s character and is in direct contradiction to the man I met a couple of times and contrary to the opinion of many more that I know that worked closely with him. His private sorrow over 9-11, and his steel resolve that such an act would never again happen to the US, motivated him beyond the usual understanding of the chattering classes (such as the media) that looks for pedestrian political purposes in every act. Sometimes, as in the case of President Bush, what is said and done is exactly what is said and done.
President Bush is a man of character and honor and he took his role as CINC very seriously. The troops loved him and respected him, even when they suffered. That is a true measure of a leader.
“Gunrunner: I also disagree”
Join the long queue and take a number. ;-)
“He has simply avoided the over heated and often ridiculous rhetoric of the Bush administration.”
Of that I disagree. Speaking of end-dates without any consideration as to the morale boost that is sent to the terrorists. Talking about withdrawal without clearly stating that the strategic objectives must be achieved first is political pandering at the expense of national security. The problem is, pandering sends clear signals of weakness, of a lack of resolve.
“I felt all along that Bush badly wanted to be Reagan.”
All true conservatives wish to emulate Reagan. I see no problem there.
“And to be Reagan, he needed a big enemy like the Soviet Union. Since there wasn’t one available, he simply over-inflated the enemy that was available. There was no world war so he invented one.”
I have to disagree strongly. To allege President Bush acted merely to satisfy some yearning for relevance is to misread the man’s character and is in direct contradiction to them man I met a couple of times and contrary to the opinion of many more that I know that worked closely with him. His private sorrow of 9-11 and his steel resolve that such an act would never again happen on US motivated him beyond the usual understanding of the chattering media class that looks for pedestrian political purposes in every act. Sometimes, as in the case of President Bush, what is said and done is exactly what is said and done.
President Bush is a man of character and honor and he took his role as CINC very seriously. The troops loved him and respected him, even when they suffered. And the fact that 9-11 happened easily dismisses any claim he “over-inflated” and “invented” a deadly enemy of the United States. The mass murder and destruction that took place on 9-11 was not over-stated or invented, unless you are one of those ’9-11 truther’ types.
Gunrunner: For starters, Obama has not set an “end-date.” When the United States is involved in counterinsurgency, the trick is to motivate the partner government to undertake serious reform. In both El Salvador and Iraq, the partner government knew that U.S. support would end in the absence of reform. No one, whether the Iraqi government or the insurgents, believed that the U.S. commitment was really unending.
And, notice that you twisted my words. I did not say Bush invented 9/11. I said he invented a world war.
On Bush, I think I haven’t clearly expressed my point. I’ve never doubted the sincerity of the administration. But I’m suggesting that future historians will look back and say that in the post 9/11 trauma, the United States–not just the administration but the country as a whole–gave the enemy more credit than it was due. The Soviet Union could have destroyed the United States. Al Qaeda cannot.
Steve, good posts and contributions. I tend to agree, though I wonder whether it was a matter of over-estimating the enemy or under-estimating what the campaigns that were decided upon would require. Maybe a bit of both?
Good Morning Steve,
For starters, yes, Obama has set an “end date,” and that date is 2011 when he plans to begin withdrawal of forces. That is an end date as is says, we are “leaving starting now.” In fact, just this morning in the Washington Examiner newspaper is an opinion piece discussing this very same subject, raising the very points of concern I have tried to raise (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/U_S_-military-growing-concerned-with-Obama_s-Afghan-policy-92723004.html).
I twisted your words? Really? Didn’t mean to. I thought I was responding to an allegation that President Bush used 9-11 as a springboard to over-react. His appropriate response to 9-11, his worldwide war against terrorism, was justified and appropriate. I apologize if I mischaracterizes your point, mistakes do happen.
While the Soviet Union may have been able to destroy the United States, they would have destroyed themselves in the process, along with the rest of the world. In the case of AQ, they can severely hurt and, yes, even destroy the United States. How so? They can’t bury the United States (they haven’t nukes, yet), but they can do some very real damage that while not be enough to destroy this great nation, the damage will be enough to erode the economic strength of the nation (post 9-11 stock-market fall), as well as hobble our ability to defend ourselves by using our very civil liberties to their advantage. Probe, attack and then claim unfair profiling, threatening to sue those that report suspicious activity, demanding accommodation and imposing their Therefore, that is why it is very important when discovered, we capture or “Kill them, kill them all” (Gen Stonewall Jackson).
You know, I can’t help but note that even given the more recent failures of terrorist acts, and the ascribing of being amateur to those who tried to make them happen, a poorly constructed device still has the capacity to hurt people. I think we pare away some of the fear that’s generated by mocking such faults, but as courtneyme109 notes, there’s still a danger to the acts themselves. They don’t have to be sophisticated to be successful.
I wonder whether the crudeness of many recent failed attacks comes in part from successful CT efforts, to the extent that operatives have to sink so far below the radar that they cannot acquire the requisite expertise, nor meet with those who have it. Still, being able to plant a car bomb, albeit a crude one, in the middle of Times Square achieved some psychological effect.
It would be amazing that CT efforts anywhere could achieve such a result but which CT efforts do you mean?
I’m not a big fan of the Obama strategy in Afghanistan but I don’t think we can assess it unless we depict it accurately. Setting a date for the beginning of a condition based draw down is not an “end date” any more than Bush’s indication that he would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq as conditions allowed.
One can argue about listing a specific date (although the administration quickly explained that it was a “soft” one). As I suggested above, one of the biggest dilemmas in counterinsurgency support is inspiring the partner regime to undertake reform and accept responsibility. The Bush administration did this in Iraq by things like Hadley’s leaked November 2006 memo which questioned Maliki’s viability.
Obama had tried to do this in Afghanistan by indicating to Karzai that there are limits to our patience.
“Setting a date for the beginning of a condition based draw down is not an “end date” any more than Bush’s indication that he would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq as conditions allowed. ”
I will have to respectfully disagree.
Saying we will leave when such-and-such conditions are achieved is a far piece from saying we will leave starting at such-and-such a date regardless of the conditions, as Obama has essentially said to calm his left wing. In the former case you are fighting for a purpose, in the latter case you are fighting for a time-line.
Anyway, thanks for the exchange.
“Based on conditions” does not mean “regardless of conditions.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/afghanistan-president-obama-lays-strategy-troop-surge/story?id=9224638
“They can’t bury the United States (they haven’t nukes, yet), but they can do some very real damage that while not be enough to destroy this great nation, the damage will be enough to erode the economic strength of the nation (post 9-11 stock-market fall)”
Are you talking about AQ or Goldman Sachs? LOL :)
Ha. . .good one!
Interesting GAO report on “Afghanistan’s Security Environment.”
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10613r.pdf