Excellent WP article on the status of the war on terra

[Godless Dave]

I found this long, but well worth the read, article this morning. It starts out talking about how in March of 2002 the CIA scaled down it's Al Qaeda-hunting operations in Afghanistan so they could concentrate on Iraq. But then it goes on to interview a bunch of intelligence, foreign policy, and counter-terrorism experts, many of who previously worked for the Bush administration but quit, who say Bush is using the wrong strategy to go after terrorism. You know that slogan he uses, "They hate us for our freedom?" I thought it was just a dumb slogan for consumption by the masses. According to the article, he actually believes it, and that misperception is driving his strategy for protecting the United States from international terrorism.

Read it and weep.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/20041022/ts_washpost/a52673_2004oct21

[Ronin]

Yeah, we know it's a screwed pooch.

Now what?

[Godless Dave]

Now what?
Implement the suggestions of George Tenet, John Kerry, the 9/11 Commission, and others:


Increase the use of special forces and covert ops to combat terrorist cells.
Re-examine and adjust US foreign policy, especially in regard to propping up dictators and kings (Saudi Arabia) in exchange for cheap oil.
Implement the three-year-old State Department recommendations on nation building in Iraq, with an eye towards employing Iraqis rather than foreigners and helping Iraqi-owned, rather than foreign-owned, businesses be successful (to the extent we are involved in Iraq at all).
Act like we really mean it in regards to supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.
Employ sticks as well as carrots with Israel. Israel kills a bunch of Hamas leaders? No problem. Israel kicks a bunch of Palestinian farmers off their land? Impose real penalties for such behavior.
Lots more stuff that people smarter than I have probably already thought of but Bush isn't interested in because it doesn't involve acting like a cowboy.

[Ronin]

Good list.

Increase the use of special forces and covert ops to combat terrorist cells.

Thanks for that, GD.

[Petra]

Implement the three-year-old State Department recommendations on nation building in Iraq, with an eye towards employing Iraqis rather than foreigners and helping Iraqi-owned, rather than foreign-owned, businesses be successful (to the extent we are involved in Iraq at all).

That's been my thinking, too. If BushCo had immediately acted to employ Iraqis after the toppling of the Saddam Statue, I believe we wouldn't be seeing the insurgency that has risen to terrifying levels today.

[Ronin]

I was under the impression that Bechtel (http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm) was doing that very thing.

Is there any room in Iraq for humanitarian, technological and security personnel who are American?

Or will any American be considered a despicable infidel and a target?

Is Afghanistan a more justifiable place for Americans who genuinely wish to provide infrastructure and security and basic societal needs?

Also, is anyone else here reaching the same level of disgust and horror at "insurgents" for this abomination (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6603324)?

[ApostateAbe]

That is a good article for anyone who wants to understand the war on terror. It gets the official ApostateAbe stamp of approval.

[Dingfod]

Also, is anyone else here reaching the same level of disgust and horror at "insurgents" for this abomination (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6603324)?Well, yeah. But, if those are actually al Qaeda, aren't these al Qaeda people trained by the same people in the Afghanistan training camps that our own CIA trained to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, the same CIA people that trained the Contras at Ft. Benning, the same Contras that used pretty much the same tactics in Nicaragua, tactics such as kidnappings, bombings and killing unarmed civilians in line for registering to vote? And we're somehow surprised?

Now, I do not know for a fact that our own people actually trained Contras and Mujahadeen (al Qaeda) to kidnap and execute unarmed people, but it does seem a bit suspicious that the tactics used by both bear a remarkable resemblance when their only connection is being trained by the U.S.

[Ronin]

Also, is anyone else here reaching the same level of disgust and horror at "insurgents" for this abomination (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6603324)?Well, yeah. But, if those are actually al Qaeda, aren't these al Qaeda people trained by the same people in the Afghanistan training camps that our own CIA trained to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, the same CIA people that trained the Contras at Ft. Benning, the same Contras that used pretty much the same tactics in Nicaragua, tactics such as kidnappings, bombings and killing unarmed civilians in line for registering to vote? And we're somehow surprised?

Now, I do not know for a fact that our own people actually trained Contras and Mujahadeen (al Qaeda) to kidnap and execute unarmed people, but it does seem a bit suspicious that the tactics used by both bear a remarkable resemblance when their only connection is being trained by the U.S.


Sorry, warrenly, but it wouldn't matter to me if the fucking Cave Dwellers taught the Forest Dwellers how to ambush and slaughter the unarmed Mountain Dwellers...and now the Forest Dwellers are doing the same thing to the Cave Dwellers.

It is an immoral crime against humanity.

I would really like to see my other questions addressed as well:

Is there any room in Iraq for humanitarian, technological and security personnel who are American?

Or will any American be considered a despicable infidel and a target?

Is Afghanistan a more justifiable place for Americans who genuinely wish to provide infrastructure and security and basic societal needs?

[Dingfod]

Sorry, warrenly, but it wouldn't matter to me if the fucking Cave Dwellers taught the Forest Dwellers how to ambush and slaughter the unarmed Mountain Dwellers...and now the Forest Dwellers are doing the same thing to the Cave Dwellers.

It is an immoral crime against humanity.Agreed. It just shouldn't be a surprise.

I would really like to see my other questions addressed as well:

[quote]Is there any room in Iraq for humanitarian, technological and security personnel who are American?

Or will any American be considered a despicable infidel and a target?

Is Afghanistan a more justifiable place for Americans who genuinely wish to provide infrastructure and security and basic societal needs?Right now, Iraq isn't really a safe place for any American, regardless of mission. I'm sure many Iraqis would welcome Americans into their homes and treat them well, and welcome their help, but there is that faction, maybe 10%, maybe 25% whose hatred runs deep. Remember too, these are people that hold grudges for centuries. "You killed my father/brother/sister/mother/son/daughter/uncle/nephew/cousin, prepare to die, infidel"
~and~
Yes, Americans will continue to be considered despicable infidels and legitimate targets by many in that part of the world for the foreseeable future, thanks to the actions of the Bush administration.
~and~
From what I've heard much of Afghanistan isn't much better than Iraq for Americans right now, except for maybe Kabul there isn't much of any security at all.

[Shake]

Well, I'm still in the middle of reading the article (yes, it IS very good!), but I was struck by this:Townsend, who inherited Downing's duties this spring, said the best evidence of Bush's success "is every day that goes by that America doesn't suffer another attack."
That's just ludicrous! Who says that they haven't been waiting for things to become a little more lax before staging another attack? Or waiting for another good opportunity to instill fear (at election time, say)? The only evidence of Bush's so-called "success" is the questionably effective elimination of certain previously known al-Qaeda leaders.

I mean, we can't be looking everywhere. While we're pursuing some known figures and cells, there could be others operating covertly, without suspicion in some unexpected area.

The planning for the 9/11 attacks were said to have taken years to put in place. We had 8+ years of no attacks between the first WTC bombing in '93 and the events of late '01. I suppose by Townsend's logic, that would show evidence of Clinton's success!

[Shake]

Hmm ... also, not to be too much of a conspiracy theorist or anything, but it's a little interesting that Iran so quickly handed over a bunch of names. I wouldn't put it passed Iran to have maybe thrown in some other 'undesireables' that they may have been trying to get rid of ... allowing the US to do the dirty work for them.

I mean, why spend your own resources (human and financial) when the US is willing to do it for you, right? "Your research doesn't show these people as being al-Qaeda? Oh, trust us, they are your enemies!" (tee hee)

PS. I'm forwarding this on to lots of people.

[Ronin]

Yes, Americans will continue to be considered despicable infidels and legitimate targets by many in that part of the world for the foreseeable future, thanks to the actions of the Bush administration.

He certainly antagonized it and miserably so.

However, it is my view (and recollection) that we Americans were despicable infidels and considered legitimate targets by many in that part of the world prior to Bush...many, many years prior as a matter of fact.

I guess the point I am trying to reach is...wouldn't it be a legitimate act to go to that region in order to secure stability, reconstruction and provide societal order on humanitarian grounds?

I'm also starting to perceive a double standard where things like Abu Gharaib and Gitmo are played out over and over again as horrendous acts against liberty and humanity, but "insurgents" get more of a pass for even more abominable acts.

Perhaps I'm just seeing more criticism and myopia directed at American-caused injustices...and less so directed at "insurgent" kidnappers and murderers.

[Dingfod]

My brother, who has traveled quite a lot in the Middle East, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and the UAE, and has friends and business contacts there has noted that the number of people there with a positive view of America and Americans has fallen from probably 75% of the population to maybe 10 or 20% just because of the way the Bush administration has justified war against Iraq and the subsequent mishandling, no other reasons.

Two wrongs never make a right. Abu Graihb and Gitmo cannot be justified by "they do it too". Both sides are wrong when they commit atrocities. I am not defending them by saying it shouldn't come as a big surprise, especially considering who our guys are fighting and who trained their trainers. What can you say about 50 unarmed guys killed execution style? That is horrid, no matter who perpetrated it on whom.

You know, if this whole Iraq thing had been framed on humanitarian grounds from day one rather than the trumped up bullshit they used, I would have been very apt to support the cause. I think our traditional allies would've been more likely to have joined in too. Doing this properly would've probably taken a lot larger force in order to maintain the very order that we are required to maintain as occupiers according to the Geneva Convention. I mean maybe 3 times the force, enough so we could do more than just establish and guard military bases and the oil ministry. If we had done that plus gone in right away with lots of skid-mounted generator units and restored basic utilities to prewar levels right away, we'd have the popular support of the Iraqi people right now. Even two times the force would have been nice, with maybe 30,000 troops each from the UK, France and Germany and more than just token hundreds from the others in the coalition, don't you think?

The fault for the fate of these Iraqi National Guard troops can be laid right at the feet of the US military for failing to protect unarmed people in an occupied country. We Americans cannot escape responsibility for what is going on over there by blaming it all on the bad guys. If we were controlling the borders and policing the country as we should've been doing, the bad guys wouldn't have pretty much free reign of the country as they seem to have.

Unfortunately for whoever is the next President, there is a mess that needs to be straightened out and it is going to take more armed forces over there, not fewer. As distasteful as I find that to be, it will be our job to set things right.

[Ronin]

My brother, who has traveled quite a lot in the Middle East, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and the UAE, and has friends and business contacts there has noted that the number of people there with a positive view of America and Americans has fallen from probably 75% of the population to maybe 10 or 20% just because of the way the Bush administration has justified war against Iraq and the subsequent mishandling, no other reasons.

My cousin and her husband used to live in Saudi Arabia (he worked as an engineer) back in the late 70s - early 80s and I remember them telling me all sorts of horror stories regarding their treatment and the need for limited movement and personal security.

I also still recall images of the Iran hostage situation and the overall sense (even as a pre-teen) that the middle-eastern countries loathed Americans.

Also, I really wouldn't consider the use of percentages as if they reflect an authoritative study and not personal perception.

Two wrongs never make a right. Abu Graihb and Gitmo cannot be justified by "they do it too". Both sides are wrong when they commit atrocities. I am not defending them by saying it shouldn't come as a big surprise, especially considering who our guys are fighting and who trained their trainers. What can you say about 50 unarmed guys killed execution style? That is horrid, no matter who perpetrated it on whom.

The intent of my reflection is that there still seems to be an overemphasis on American - caused injustice and only a slight offense at "insurgent" - cause injustice...if any.

It seems skewed in favor of dismissing the behavior of "insurgents".

You know, if this whole Iraq thing had been framed on humanitarian grounds from day one rather than the trumped up bullshit they used, I would have been very apt to support the cause. I think our traditional allies would've been more likely to have joined in too. Doing this properly would've probably taken a lot larger force in order to maintain the very order that we are required to maintain as occupiers according to the Geneva Convention. I mean maybe 3 times the force, enough so we could do more than just establish and guard military bases and the oil ministry. If we had done that plus gone in right away with lots of skid-mounted generator units and restored basic utilities to prewar levels right away, we'd have the popular support of the Iraqi people right now. Even two times the force would have been nice, with maybe 30,000 troops each from the UK, France and Germany and more than just token hundreds from the others in the coalition, don't you think?

This seems to be a hopelessly cynical view....but it still may reflect reality.

It seems to me that, in effect, you are saying that since the "right" reason (humanitarian vs war of terror or wmd) wasn't used initially then those other countries are allowing further despair and destruction and withholding their assistance to show the error of the initial premise.

That may just be the case. I'll really have to give that more thought.

The fault for the fate of these Iraqi National Guard troops can be laid right at the feet of the US military for failing to protect unarmed people in an occupied country. We Americans cannot escape responsibility for what is going on over there by blaming it all on the bad guys. If we were controlling the borders and policing the country as we should've been doing, the bad guys wouldn't have pretty much free reign of the country as they seem to have.

So, more troops and military action is required.

By the way, I have never blamed it all on the "bad guys"...I'm saying that the vast majority of the perspectives nearly outright ignore the responsibility of "bad guys" in favor of disparaging the Americans.

That's all I'm trying to get across.

Unfortunately for whoever is the next President, there is a mess that needs to be straightened out and it is going to take more armed forces over there, not fewer. As distasteful as I find that to be, it will be our job to set things right.

Very good then.

[Dingfod]

There have been polls done in Muslim countries that reflect similar percentages as those my brother feels are accurate among those he knows and has contact with, I can try to dig some up, if you wish.

In my opinion, and I'm not alone, making war there was wrong. But... now that we have made this mess, we have to clean it up. And, if it means going it alone (no, I'm not forgetting Poland), so be it. But, the commitment needs to be there, no minimally staffed military force, no free-fire zones, no bombing of cities, no no-bid American company only contracts, world market prices for Iraqi oil, and probably a whole bunch of other shit my marble-sized brain hasn't thought of in the short time it took to write this mishmash mess of a post.

The question is, increasing military presence is exactly what the response was in Vietnam, how do we avoid another Vietnam? Withdraw, just like we did from there. Shortly after 9/11/2001, someone asked me what we could do to stop Islamic terrorism. I said America wouldn't have the stomach for what we'd have to do, hell, I don't either. I'm not sure there is a good answer to any of this.

We fucked up Iraq and now we're fucked. Too bad, now we have to deal with it, one way or another. Either we mop up the mess we made and try to turn it over to some semblance of an international pan-Arab force, or just pull the hell out and let the Iraqi people hash it out, then proceed to live life like the average Israeli, with machine gun toting soldiers everywhere on the streets and the occasional bus bombing or mass killing spree.

[Ronin]

There have been polls done in Muslim countries that reflect similar percentages as those my brother feels are accurate among those he knows and has contact with, I can try to dig some up, if you wish.

I'd really appreciate that. I would also be interested in any polls done over the past three decades or so to determine any gain/loss in positive perspectives regarding "America" in that region.

In my opinion, and I'm not alone, making war there was wrong.

As I have seen from your posts, it was only the "premise" that was wrong in Iraq...with which I agree. On humanitarian grounds, however, it can be given a better justification.

The war in Afghanistan, in my view, was entirely justified.

But... now that we have made this mess, we have to clean it up. And, if it means going it alone (no, I'm not forgetting Poland), so be it. But, the commitment needs to be there, no minimally staffed military force, no free-fire zones, no bombing of cities, no no-bid American company only contracts, world market prices for Iraqi oil, and probably a whole bunch of other shit my marble-sized brain hasn't thought of in the short time it took to write this mishmash mess of a post.

I disagree that "we have made this mess" and think that there are others from that region with some very significant responsibility for the current state of affairs there.

I agree that efforts need to continue to rebuild and rehabilitate even within such a chaotic environment.

The question is, increasing military presence is exactly what the response was in Vietnam, how do we avoid another Vietnam? Withdraw, just like we did from there. Shortly after 9/11/2001, someone asked me what we could do to stop Islamic terrorism. I said America wouldn't have the stomach for what we'd have to do, hell, I don't either. I'm not sure there is a good answer to any of this.

I agree, warrenly, that is where my head is as well.

We fucked up Iraq and now we're fucked. Too bad, now we have to deal with it, one way or another. Either we mop up the mess we made and try to turn it over to some semblance of an international pan-Arab force, or just pull the hell out and let the Iraqi people hash it out, then proceed to live life like the average Israeli, with machine gun toting soldiers everywhere on the streets and the occasional bus bombing or mass killing spree.

I'm thinking that staying and helping rebuild is the best course of action.

[Godless Dave]

Well, I'm still in the middle of reading the article (yes, it IS very good!), but I was struck by this:Townsend, who inherited Downing's duties this spring, said the best evidence of Bush's success "is every day that goes by that America doesn't suffer another attack."That's just ludicrous!
I agree that it's ludicrous. And if it weren't ludicrous, we would have to give Bill Clinton and his team credit for the seven years attack-free years after the 1993 Al Qaida attack on New York City. The 1999 embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole bombing were not on US soil so apparently don't count under Townsend's system.

[Dingfod]

There have been polls done in Muslim countries that reflect similar percentages as those my brother feels are accurate among those he knows and has contact with, I can try to dig some up, if you wish.
I'd really appreciate that. I would also be interested in any polls done over the past three decades or so to determine any gain/loss in positive perspectives regarding "America" in that region.Zogby polls of Arabs in various countries (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7080-2004Jul22.html) show a marked increase in a negative view of America since 2002. A Lebanese poll taken just before the US invasion of Iraq (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles179.htm) showed 70% of Arabs in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon thought an American invasion would increase terrorist operations, and shows a tiny percentage think an American invasion will help to curb terrorism. An article from Al Ahram (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/701/in2.htm) summarizes the Zogby and and Arab American Institute polls. Here is an article (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/662/op40.htm) that explains why polling Arab opinion is difficult and how the first poll by Egyptians in 1998 was denigrated as "a form of treason".

For a valid comparison, one would actually have to have polls from prior to 1991 to know where we stood at the time, way back when we were helping the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. But, alas, there is a dearth of polls prior to 1998, actually none I can easily find predate 2001, one that year taken by Zogby after 9/11, an event that had Palestinians dancing in the streets. So, granted, in some areas, opinion of America wasn't very high to begin with.

But, one thing they were able to do in the past was separate their view of Americans and that of American government policy. I've commonly related the following I saw on a CNN news report in Lebanon sometime in the early 1980s when protesters were marching in the streets of Beirut carry signs and chanting, much like the Iranians did in Tehran circa 1979. The television reporter stepped into the street with cameraman in tow, accosting a protester carrying a sign with "Death to America" handlettered on it. The reporter asked the protester, "Why do you hate Americans?" The man said "No, no, no. I don't hate Americans, I love Americans. I hate American government." With not much more than that and sources my brother trusts to back it up, I have the feeling that man's sentiment was the prevalent view Arabs held of Americans prior to Bush's War on Terra brand invasion of Iraq.
I'm thinking that staying and helping rebuild is the best course of action.What if it turns into another Vietnam? What if tens of thousands of American soldiers per year come home in body bags? When will the price paid be enough? When do we say we've had enough? I know that about half of America is already saying exactly that, how many percent more would have to turn against it before it becomes politically expedient to pull out? Not many more that 50%, I'd guess.

[Godless Dave]

Good list.

Increase the use of special forces and covert ops to combat terrorist cells.
Thanks for that, GD.
I'd love to take credit for that idea but military experts have been saying that for decades. The US has dominated the world in conventional military capabilities since at least the early 1960s. But we've known since Vietnam that our abilities to fight an enemy who is using guerrilla tactics are limited. But what every expert says and what makes it into defense appropriation bills are two very different things.

Part of John Kerry's plan is to roughly double the size of the total special forces component of the military. I think it's a no-brainer, but give him credit for really pushing it.

Meanwhile, Bush and the Republicans in Congress are spending our money to deploy a missile defense system that still doesn't work.