Retired General Abizaid, in an AP interview, said the United States has done a poor job of fighting Islamic extremism. Quoting Abizaid, "I don't blame it on any people. I just blame it on a bureaucratic system that has been unresponsive thus far to the challenges of the 21st century. We need to change that as a matter of national priority."
The "bureaucratic system" that the general refers to can be overcome. The Obama administration should bring together our foremost experts on all aspects of the Middle East, counter-terrorism, religious fundamentalism, economic development, and any other pertinent subject that could contribute knowledge to the development of an overall strategy to fight Islamic extremism through economic, educational, political, diplomatic, social, and other means. There are signs in both overt and subtle foreign policy changes that the Obama administration is leaning in this direction. Let's hope the effort gains momentum and some progress can be made toward making the world safer.
Showing posts with label Islamic Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic Terrorism. Show all posts
Monday, April 06, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Have You Noticed
Have you noticed how many news commentators and policy pundits are weighing in on what the new U.S. President and his administration have been doing? I even had a pollster call on Obama's second day as President to ask whether I approved of the job he was doing. I looked up the poll results on www.surveyusa.com. I found out there are already people out there who don't approve of the job he's doing. Well, they're probably the same people who approved of the job former President Bush was doing. Somehow, I can't give them any credence, nor should I. Let's face it, if we expect the public to get behind the new President, we are delusional. We just can't be silent. If you agree with Obama, say so. Don't be afraid to say, "Yes, I agree with closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp." or "Yes, I agree with a woman getting pay equal to a man's pay when they do the same job."
It's evident here in Kansas that the Bush-Cheney dosage of fear of terrorists has worked. Else why all of the fuss about moving some of these terrorists/guerrilla fighters to the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. Have you noticed that no one complained about that place before? I'll bet it already houses some guys you wouldn't want out on the streets of our fair cities. None of them have escaped, at least lately as far as I know.
It's evident here in Kansas that the Bush-Cheney dosage of fear of terrorists has worked. Else why all of the fuss about moving some of these terrorists/guerrilla fighters to the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. Have you noticed that no one complained about that place before? I'll bet it already houses some guys you wouldn't want out on the streets of our fair cities. None of them have escaped, at least lately as far as I know.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Taliban's Achilles Heel
Most news reports about the war-like exploits of the Taliban relate how groups of them travel about Afghanistan in pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs with guns and mounted weapons like machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. Such vehicles are also the common means of delivery of bombs by suicide operators. The Taliban is also said to be ubiquitous in the population and difficult to locate, hence difficult to engage militarily and to destroy them.
The presence of pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs in a rural community would indicate the possible presence of Taliban members. A strategy to impair the ability of the Taliban to conduct operations in the countryside would be to simply ban the use of pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs and destroy by aerial attack any pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs operating along roads or trails. The control of these vehicles would make Taliban members march like soldiers of olden days, severely limiting their range and speed of operation. Besides reducing their ability to operate militarily, banning pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs would probably reduce their ability to recruit. Concealment of a vehicle by garaging or camouflaging it would not matter, as the vehicle would only be a target when used. It would be back to the donkey cart for the Afghan farmer for local transport.
It would be difficult for replacement vehicles to be smuggled into Afghanistan, because control points could be established along the sparse road system's few border crossings. Collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths could be diminished by announcing that any vehicle operating on a roadway or trail would be a target of opportunity and treated accordingly. Let the rider beware. Legitimate vehicular transport of people and goods could be accomplished by government operated or leased bus transport and trucking services. Night time operations could be countered by use of infra-red vision equipment and heat-seeking missiles. Essentially, the plan is to cover Afghanistan with a no-drive zone, much as Iraq was restricted by a no-fly zone.
If there is going to be an all-out effort to vanquish the Taliban, I think it should begin by denying them motor transport.
Solving the world's problems, one at a time.
The presence of pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs in a rural community would indicate the possible presence of Taliban members. A strategy to impair the ability of the Taliban to conduct operations in the countryside would be to simply ban the use of pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs and destroy by aerial attack any pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs operating along roads or trails. The control of these vehicles would make Taliban members march like soldiers of olden days, severely limiting their range and speed of operation. Besides reducing their ability to operate militarily, banning pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs would probably reduce their ability to recruit. Concealment of a vehicle by garaging or camouflaging it would not matter, as the vehicle would only be a target when used. It would be back to the donkey cart for the Afghan farmer for local transport.
It would be difficult for replacement vehicles to be smuggled into Afghanistan, because control points could be established along the sparse road system's few border crossings. Collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths could be diminished by announcing that any vehicle operating on a roadway or trail would be a target of opportunity and treated accordingly. Let the rider beware. Legitimate vehicular transport of people and goods could be accomplished by government operated or leased bus transport and trucking services. Night time operations could be countered by use of infra-red vision equipment and heat-seeking missiles. Essentially, the plan is to cover Afghanistan with a no-drive zone, much as Iraq was restricted by a no-fly zone.
If there is going to be an all-out effort to vanquish the Taliban, I think it should begin by denying them motor transport.
Solving the world's problems, one at a time.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Fighting Drugs and Terrorism- Parallels
A November, 2008, report by the Brookings Institute's Partnership for the Americas Commission concerns key challenges faced by the United States and the hemisphere’s other countries—such as securing sustainable energy supplies, combating and adapting to climate change, and combating organized crime and drug trafficking. The report concludes that these challenges have become so complex and deeply transnational that they cannot be managed or overcome by any single country.
Focusing on the "war on drugs", Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times writes,"The problem, according to the report, is that the U.S. approach emphasizes law enforcement and neglects the problem of consumption." The same article Ernesto Zedillo, Co-chairman of the Brookings Institution's Partnership for the Americas Commission, is reported as saying that U.S. policy has been "asymmetrical" in demanding Mexico stanch the flow of drugs northward without successful efforts to stop the flow of guns south and that, in addition to disrupting drug-smuggling routes, eradicating crops and prosecuting dealers, the U.S. must confront the public health issue that large-scale [drug] consumption poses. Wilkinson further quotes Zedillo as saying, "If we insist only on a strategy of a criminal pursuit of those who traffic in drugs, the problem will never be resolved."
It occurred to me that the same proposition could be applied to the "war on terror". If we insist on a strategy of military action against terrorists, the problem will never be solved. You simply cannot kill all of the terrorists and, the more of them that you kill, the more terrorists you will face. The U.S. and its allies in the war on terrorism must address the conditions that create terrorists.
To protect the hemisphere from drugs and organized crime, the report recommends that the nations undertake a comprehensive, comparative evaluation of counter narcotics measures. Recommended actions, among others, include: (1)increase substantially the amount of federal and state funds available to drug courts and related treatment programs, (2) complement drug-prevention programs in schools with drug education outside the classroom, (3) customize the messages of drug-prevention campaigns to specific target groups, and (4) combine eradication efforts with policies to promote alternative livelihoods and more effective interdiction.
To protect the world from radical Islamic terrorists, the nations need to undertake a comprehensive counter-terrorism measures. Recommended actions include: (1) creating employment opportunities and job training through the investment of Middle Eastern oil profits throughout areas where Muslims predominate; (2) improving educational opportunities that supplant the religious training of Muslim youth and eclipse teaching of radical Islamic beliefs; (3) developing motion picture, television and other performance events, including professional sports, that are consistent with Muslim religious beliefs, (4) admitting to the adverse effects of colonialism and take actions to rectify any remnants of colonialism by making amends where possible; (5) showcasing Western life and values to counter misconceptions among the Muslim population about Americans and Europeans; 6) delivering medical assistance wherever it is needed to impoverished populations; and providing technical assistance and equipment to improve agriculture and food production and consumption. There are certainly other things that can be done to slowly, but surely, transform the Muslim world into a modern society with respect to tolerating other religions, diminishing corruption, and respecting human rights (particular those of women). Perhaps, with a new President, an effective counter to radial Islamic terrorism can be developed.
Focusing on the "war on drugs", Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times writes,"The problem, according to the report, is that the U.S. approach emphasizes law enforcement and neglects the problem of consumption." The same article Ernesto Zedillo, Co-chairman of the Brookings Institution's Partnership for the Americas Commission, is reported as saying that U.S. policy has been "asymmetrical" in demanding Mexico stanch the flow of drugs northward without successful efforts to stop the flow of guns south and that, in addition to disrupting drug-smuggling routes, eradicating crops and prosecuting dealers, the U.S. must confront the public health issue that large-scale [drug] consumption poses. Wilkinson further quotes Zedillo as saying, "If we insist only on a strategy of a criminal pursuit of those who traffic in drugs, the problem will never be resolved."
It occurred to me that the same proposition could be applied to the "war on terror". If we insist on a strategy of military action against terrorists, the problem will never be solved. You simply cannot kill all of the terrorists and, the more of them that you kill, the more terrorists you will face. The U.S. and its allies in the war on terrorism must address the conditions that create terrorists.
To protect the hemisphere from drugs and organized crime, the report recommends that the nations undertake a comprehensive, comparative evaluation of counter narcotics measures. Recommended actions, among others, include: (1)increase substantially the amount of federal and state funds available to drug courts and related treatment programs, (2) complement drug-prevention programs in schools with drug education outside the classroom, (3) customize the messages of drug-prevention campaigns to specific target groups, and (4) combine eradication efforts with policies to promote alternative livelihoods and more effective interdiction.
To protect the world from radical Islamic terrorists, the nations need to undertake a comprehensive counter-terrorism measures. Recommended actions include: (1) creating employment opportunities and job training through the investment of Middle Eastern oil profits throughout areas where Muslims predominate; (2) improving educational opportunities that supplant the religious training of Muslim youth and eclipse teaching of radical Islamic beliefs; (3) developing motion picture, television and other performance events, including professional sports, that are consistent with Muslim religious beliefs, (4) admitting to the adverse effects of colonialism and take actions to rectify any remnants of colonialism by making amends where possible; (5) showcasing Western life and values to counter misconceptions among the Muslim population about Americans and Europeans; 6) delivering medical assistance wherever it is needed to impoverished populations; and providing technical assistance and equipment to improve agriculture and food production and consumption. There are certainly other things that can be done to slowly, but surely, transform the Muslim world into a modern society with respect to tolerating other religions, diminishing corruption, and respecting human rights (particular those of women). Perhaps, with a new President, an effective counter to radial Islamic terrorism can be developed.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The High Cost of Diplomacy
The U.S. State Department wants $7.5 billion more to secure our embassies, despite $4.1 billion in upgrades since 9/11. The high cost is to immunize the buildings from terrorists attacks. The AP reports that at least 150 American missions fail to meet security standards. The Kansas City Star opines that “The problem deserves a high priority as well as some innovative thinking that questions some of the assumptions behind the State Department’s wish list of new and revamped buildings (KC Star, Page B6, 6/24/08). The Star’s ‘innovative thinking’ has three points: necessity of facilities, size and staffing requirements and using technology to do embassy work in less dangerous locations. I heartily agree. We don’t need an embassy in each country. Diplomatic relations could be handled by a traveling staff, video-conferencing or, in most cases, the old-fashioned telephone. The U.S. could join with other countries, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations, to set up regional diplomacy centers that could be secured from terrorist attacks. For example, the U.S. and its allies could have a shared building located in Latin America, another in Southeast Asia, and others in various African regions. Someone will be quick to point out that diplomatic relations are not handled that way, but maybe it is time to change. Who knows? A new way could save billions in capital costs and ongoing operating expenses, money that could be used more effectively to assist less fortunate peoples in developing countries or just ease the burden on the American taxpayer.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Bases in Iraq
I heard General Petraeus, in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, say that a national security objective of the U.S. was a more-or-less permanent military presence in Iraq. Will someone please explain to me why we need military bases in Iraq once we extricate ourselves from this quagmire of civil war and sectarian violence. Watch out, it sounds like an attack on Iran is part of the Pentagon's plan.
Retired General Abizaid, in an AP interview, said the United States has done a poor job of fighting Islamic extremism. Quoting Abizaid, "I don't blame it on any people. I just blame it on a bureaucratic system that has been unresponsive thus far to the challenges of the 21st century. We need to change that as a matter of national priority."
Bureaucracy can be overcome by citizen initiatives. A national convention should be convened, bringing together our foremost experts on the Middle East, counter-terrorism, religious fundamentalism, colonial transgressions, economic development, and any other pertinent subject. The purpose of these deliberations would be to develop a plan to fight Islamic extremism through economic, educational, political, diplomatic, social, and other means. It's going to be up to the citizens.
Retired General Abizaid, in an AP interview, said the United States has done a poor job of fighting Islamic extremism. Quoting Abizaid, "I don't blame it on any people. I just blame it on a bureaucratic system that has been unresponsive thus far to the challenges of the 21st century. We need to change that as a matter of national priority."
Bureaucracy can be overcome by citizen initiatives. A national convention should be convened, bringing together our foremost experts on the Middle East, counter-terrorism, religious fundamentalism, colonial transgressions, economic development, and any other pertinent subject. The purpose of these deliberations would be to develop a plan to fight Islamic extremism through economic, educational, political, diplomatic, social, and other means. It's going to be up to the citizens.
A New Tornado - Republican Spin Lands in Kansas
Chris Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party, wrote an "As I See It" column on Bush's legacy for the September 11, 2007, Kansas City Star. While using material from Karl Rove's National Review article titled "The Long View", and heaven knows what other publications, without attribution, he may have included personal observations. Regardless of his sources, his comments warrant reply. Upon reading Morgan's lead sentence, which featured a prepositional phrase without a leading preposition in the predicate, I decided that close reading of his essay would be needed to understand his message.
In the first paragraph, following the incomplete sentence, Morgan states that history's judgement of Bush is an important debate, with consideration of Bush's deeds and accomplishments during both terms being equally important. What Morgan omits as also important to the debate are Bush's misdeeds and failures, and the beneficial or deleterious effects of his deeds, misdeeds, accomplishments and failures. History's judgement will not be based on a one-sided evaluation. Morgan claims that history, rightly or wrongly, will judge Bush largely on our success or failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Morgan's characterization of the weight given the outcomes of Bush's military ventures as a decider of his legacy seems on target. His insinuation that history's judgement may not be fair to Bush is an unwarranted disclaimer of its validity and is an veiled attempt to preempt history's judgement with his own.
Morgan labels as significant Bush's policy pronouncement to preemptively attack terrorists or their enablers, and even claims that the policy should have been put in effect after the World Trade Center attack in 1993. Morgan describes the changes as an "…aggressive campaign against terrorists, vowing to hunt them down and [to] punish … sponsors of terrorism overseas." This isn't a new policy, it is merely a more intense reaction to a horrific terrorist act that woke us all up to the depth of hatred that fundamentalist Islamists, operating as al-Qaida, have for the West. The formulator of this reaction wasn't George Bush, rather it was Osama bin Laden. The sole pursuit of this policy in our foreign relations has damaged our reputation abroad, while focusing our attention on the use of military force rather than meeting the challenges of the 21st Century by applying economic, political and diplomatic means to fight Islamic extremism. If I were a Bush Republican, I'd be careful with what credit I took for policies that can just as easily misfire.
I take issue with every claim of leadership that Morgan makes for Bush from African AIDs relief to 'modernizing' prescription drug benefits, but space is lacking for a wholesale refutation of his claims. However, three audacious claims are worth exposing: first, that Bush led the economy from recession; second, that Bush returned the rule of law back to the courts; and third, that Bush has effectively confronted Islamic terrorism.
Let's be clear, the economy was never in recession and Presidents have little, if any, impact on the performance of the capitalistic, free-trade economy that we enjoy. It's still a fact that the rule of law has always been the purpose of the courts. It never left. What's more, everyone is responsible for upholding the rule of law, including the Executive Office of the President, Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. How well has George Bush fared in this regard? The lack of an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil proves nothing about our relative safety today. Actually, because Bush confronted Islamic terrorism with military strength, little has been done to defuse it or develop a comprehensive plan to counter its divisive effects.
I don't expect any better from a hard-liner like Morgan. Actually, Bush alone doesn't deserve all the blame for the sad state of affairs that exists in our nation today. The blame is shared by the Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Bush appointees, members of Congress who support Bush and his minions and plain old citizens who believe the crap being spewed out by Republican operatives and hangers-on.
In the first paragraph, following the incomplete sentence, Morgan states that history's judgement of Bush is an important debate, with consideration of Bush's deeds and accomplishments during both terms being equally important. What Morgan omits as also important to the debate are Bush's misdeeds and failures, and the beneficial or deleterious effects of his deeds, misdeeds, accomplishments and failures. History's judgement will not be based on a one-sided evaluation. Morgan claims that history, rightly or wrongly, will judge Bush largely on our success or failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Morgan's characterization of the weight given the outcomes of Bush's military ventures as a decider of his legacy seems on target. His insinuation that history's judgement may not be fair to Bush is an unwarranted disclaimer of its validity and is an veiled attempt to preempt history's judgement with his own.
Morgan labels as significant Bush's policy pronouncement to preemptively attack terrorists or their enablers, and even claims that the policy should have been put in effect after the World Trade Center attack in 1993. Morgan describes the changes as an "…aggressive campaign against terrorists, vowing to hunt them down and [to] punish … sponsors of terrorism overseas." This isn't a new policy, it is merely a more intense reaction to a horrific terrorist act that woke us all up to the depth of hatred that fundamentalist Islamists, operating as al-Qaida, have for the West. The formulator of this reaction wasn't George Bush, rather it was Osama bin Laden. The sole pursuit of this policy in our foreign relations has damaged our reputation abroad, while focusing our attention on the use of military force rather than meeting the challenges of the 21st Century by applying economic, political and diplomatic means to fight Islamic extremism. If I were a Bush Republican, I'd be careful with what credit I took for policies that can just as easily misfire.
I take issue with every claim of leadership that Morgan makes for Bush from African AIDs relief to 'modernizing' prescription drug benefits, but space is lacking for a wholesale refutation of his claims. However, three audacious claims are worth exposing: first, that Bush led the economy from recession; second, that Bush returned the rule of law back to the courts; and third, that Bush has effectively confronted Islamic terrorism.
Let's be clear, the economy was never in recession and Presidents have little, if any, impact on the performance of the capitalistic, free-trade economy that we enjoy. It's still a fact that the rule of law has always been the purpose of the courts. It never left. What's more, everyone is responsible for upholding the rule of law, including the Executive Office of the President, Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. How well has George Bush fared in this regard? The lack of an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil proves nothing about our relative safety today. Actually, because Bush confronted Islamic terrorism with military strength, little has been done to defuse it or develop a comprehensive plan to counter its divisive effects.
I don't expect any better from a hard-liner like Morgan. Actually, Bush alone doesn't deserve all the blame for the sad state of affairs that exists in our nation today. The blame is shared by the Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Bush appointees, members of Congress who support Bush and his minions and plain old citizens who believe the crap being spewed out by Republican operatives and hangers-on.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Military Response to Terrorism
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an immediate response by the United States was not only expected, it was virtually demanded by a nation that would not allow this criminal act go unpunished. The target of our response was also predictable. Afghanistan harbored Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the attack. The Taliban, a paramilitary force was in control of Afghanistan. Clearly, combat soldiers were the appropriate response. However, a belated attack on Iraq in response to 9/11 was unexpected, at least by me.
With military operations in Aghanistan winding down, but not successfully concluded by the capture of Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and top Taliban leaders, the Bush administration began a publicity campaign to justify a military invasion of Iraq. Basically, Bush's line was that al-Qaida had conspired with Saddam Hussein in planning the 9/11 attack. Bush insisted that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush claimed that, because Saddam hated the USA, these weapons would fall into the hands of al-Qaida, who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us or at least try to do that. I won't quibble with that possibility, but surely there were options besides an armed invasion to prevent it.
The military invasion of Iraq was carried out with shock and awe, resulting in "Mission Accomplished". Saddam's army dissolved into the neighborhoods of Iraq's cities, as our forces advanced. The U.S. military stayed in place to pacify the population, but ended up embroiled in fighting against guerrilla insurgents, including fighters associated with al-Qaida. As Iraqi security spiraled out of control, our troops were caught in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia religious factions. Although the possibility that our armed forces are embroiled in a quagmire is denied by the Bush administration, they have accepted the premise that our military success will be equated to a lack of participation by opposition Iraqi elements. So, we went from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan to fighting Iraqi's in Iraq with some terrorists (who were there because we were) thrown into the mix, without an exit plan. The war has become a open-ended commitment where victory is illusive and will not be determined by our actions, but rather by the inaction of our adversaries.
The problems with continuation of the Bush military response in Iraq to a successful conclusion are manifold. The Iraq War has caused grievous casualties without commensurate gain. It has squandered national resources without a future return on investment. It has divided our society. Persons who were not for a preemptory attack on a sovereign nation are not in favor of continuing the effort, styled now as an effort to bring democracy to a Middle East country. Some who supported the attack on Iraq originally, now oppose it. But, a minority is still steadfastly thirsting for victory, including the architect, George Bush.
I oppose the Iraq invasion, at its inception and now, because I don't think the war on terror is amenable to a military response. The terrorist cells are composed not of soldiers, rather they consist of idealistic malcontents who hate America. Their hatred is a response to several conditions and perceptions of oppression, to religious dogma that has stifled the cultural and economic development of their homeland and other causes, real and imagined.
Terrorism constitutes unconventional war and bedevils conventional military tactics. A new paradigm is needed to counter terrorism. I don't have a magic formula with the answer, but I suspect it involves curing the ills of their society from inside by supporting change, but not initiating it. The less we are directly and overtly involved in the solution, the more likely it is to succeed. Since conventional warfare is not working, I hope our esteemed leaders would apply the best minds available to a new plan of action.
With military operations in Aghanistan winding down, but not successfully concluded by the capture of Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and top Taliban leaders, the Bush administration began a publicity campaign to justify a military invasion of Iraq. Basically, Bush's line was that al-Qaida had conspired with Saddam Hussein in planning the 9/11 attack. Bush insisted that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush claimed that, because Saddam hated the USA, these weapons would fall into the hands of al-Qaida, who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us or at least try to do that. I won't quibble with that possibility, but surely there were options besides an armed invasion to prevent it.
The military invasion of Iraq was carried out with shock and awe, resulting in "Mission Accomplished". Saddam's army dissolved into the neighborhoods of Iraq's cities, as our forces advanced. The U.S. military stayed in place to pacify the population, but ended up embroiled in fighting against guerrilla insurgents, including fighters associated with al-Qaida. As Iraqi security spiraled out of control, our troops were caught in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia religious factions. Although the possibility that our armed forces are embroiled in a quagmire is denied by the Bush administration, they have accepted the premise that our military success will be equated to a lack of participation by opposition Iraqi elements. So, we went from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan to fighting Iraqi's in Iraq with some terrorists (who were there because we were) thrown into the mix, without an exit plan. The war has become a open-ended commitment where victory is illusive and will not be determined by our actions, but rather by the inaction of our adversaries.
The problems with continuation of the Bush military response in Iraq to a successful conclusion are manifold. The Iraq War has caused grievous casualties without commensurate gain. It has squandered national resources without a future return on investment. It has divided our society. Persons who were not for a preemptory attack on a sovereign nation are not in favor of continuing the effort, styled now as an effort to bring democracy to a Middle East country. Some who supported the attack on Iraq originally, now oppose it. But, a minority is still steadfastly thirsting for victory, including the architect, George Bush.
I oppose the Iraq invasion, at its inception and now, because I don't think the war on terror is amenable to a military response. The terrorist cells are composed not of soldiers, rather they consist of idealistic malcontents who hate America. Their hatred is a response to several conditions and perceptions of oppression, to religious dogma that has stifled the cultural and economic development of their homeland and other causes, real and imagined.
Terrorism constitutes unconventional war and bedevils conventional military tactics. A new paradigm is needed to counter terrorism. I don't have a magic formula with the answer, but I suspect it involves curing the ills of their society from inside by supporting change, but not initiating it. The less we are directly and overtly involved in the solution, the more likely it is to succeed. Since conventional warfare is not working, I hope our esteemed leaders would apply the best minds available to a new plan of action.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Bush's Advice on How to Fight Terrorism
An Associated Press report from Sydney, Australia, says that President Bush urged Asia-Pacific nations to keep up the anti-terror fight, deploying both military might and democratic ideals to turn the tide against extremists. Bush is quoted: "Pressure keeps the terrorists on the run, and when on the run, we're safer. We must be focused, and must not let up."
'Military might' did not produce the recent arrests in Germany of terrorists plotting to harm American military personnel and damage their installations. Armed forces are not designed for combating terrorists. Police work is what stops terrorists from carrying out their nefarious plots.
"Democratic ideals' are not indigenous to Middle Eastern culture, the spawning ground of Islamist Fundamentalist ideas that fuel terrorism. Democracy developed in Western Europe and the United States over centuries. Democracy will not be installed in Middle Eastern countries on Bush's timetable, whatever that is.
Keeping up the anti-terrorist fight on Bush's terms is a ridiculous notion. It is fed to the world population in disrespect for their common sense and with knowledge of their ignorance of the Muslim world. The anti-terrorist fight is what needs focus, not the idea of keeping the terrorists on the run. What needs focus is the state of mind of the terrorists and what motivates him or her to attack the West. Bush says they don't like us, because we have freedom. I propose that they hate us, because of our imperialistic practices with regard to their homelands. I propose that they hate us, because our movies, magazines and television shows are an affront to their cultural standards. I propose that they hate us, because their own civilization is in trouble and they think we are to blame. They don't hate us for our democratic ideals or our military might, except as we use these tools against their desire for self-determination.
We, the people, need to convene a citizen's convention to develop a plan of action to deal with Islamist terrorists. We need to gather together the world's foremost experts in the subject's that have a bearing on the problem of terrorism and draw on their collective knowledge to fashion a plan for neutralizing terroristic acts and advancing their just demands. We need to rise above the culture of fear-mongering and militarism to get to a real workable solution, not a continuation of an ineffective program with false hopes for victory. We need to start now, because already, under the inept leadership of the Bushites, we are six years late in getting started to counter the reality of terrorism aimed at our people and institutions.
'Military might' did not produce the recent arrests in Germany of terrorists plotting to harm American military personnel and damage their installations. Armed forces are not designed for combating terrorists. Police work is what stops terrorists from carrying out their nefarious plots.
"Democratic ideals' are not indigenous to Middle Eastern culture, the spawning ground of Islamist Fundamentalist ideas that fuel terrorism. Democracy developed in Western Europe and the United States over centuries. Democracy will not be installed in Middle Eastern countries on Bush's timetable, whatever that is.
Keeping up the anti-terrorist fight on Bush's terms is a ridiculous notion. It is fed to the world population in disrespect for their common sense and with knowledge of their ignorance of the Muslim world. The anti-terrorist fight is what needs focus, not the idea of keeping the terrorists on the run. What needs focus is the state of mind of the terrorists and what motivates him or her to attack the West. Bush says they don't like us, because we have freedom. I propose that they hate us, because of our imperialistic practices with regard to their homelands. I propose that they hate us, because our movies, magazines and television shows are an affront to their cultural standards. I propose that they hate us, because their own civilization is in trouble and they think we are to blame. They don't hate us for our democratic ideals or our military might, except as we use these tools against their desire for self-determination.
We, the people, need to convene a citizen's convention to develop a plan of action to deal with Islamist terrorists. We need to gather together the world's foremost experts in the subject's that have a bearing on the problem of terrorism and draw on their collective knowledge to fashion a plan for neutralizing terroristic acts and advancing their just demands. We need to rise above the culture of fear-mongering and militarism to get to a real workable solution, not a continuation of an ineffective program with false hopes for victory. We need to start now, because already, under the inept leadership of the Bushites, we are six years late in getting started to counter the reality of terrorism aimed at our people and institutions.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
A New Approach Is Needed
On TV this AM, Michael Chernoff of Homeland Security declared that the intent of al-Qaida to wage "war" was unabated. The evidence of their resolve to cause America pain and suffering was the arrest in Germany and Denmark of plotters of terrorist acts against American military bases and personnel.
Six years after 9/11 and after 4-1/2 years of military action, we still find al-Qaida "unabated". Could this be a clue that our efforts in Iraq are misdirected? Apparently, after all the dead and injured troops, lives disrupted, debt incurred, resources wasted, international good-will squandered, and opportunities lost, the American public is still at risk from Islamist terrorism.
Instead of seeing al-Qaida as a nail that needs to be driven into oblivion and our armed forces as the hammer that can do just that, another solution is needed. I would support convening experts in counter-terrorism, international criminal investigation, all aspects of the Middle East and any other pertinent topic to develop a plan of action to quell the threat from fanatical Islamists. Naturally, their informed deliberations and recommendations would have to remain confidential as future actions to counter al-Qaida are prepared, but at least we could develop a plan that had a chance of working. Of course, as actions are taken to abate the intent of al-Qaida to kill some of us and injure others, the new efforts would necessarily be disclosed. Withdrawal from Iraq would be accomplished as an alternative strategy is implemented.
Perhaps, my ideas are naïve. But has an effort like that I described been attempted? If so, why don't we know about it? If not, why not? There has to be a better solution than sending in the troops, which in my estimation is an inappropriate way to counter terrorism.
Six years after 9/11 and after 4-1/2 years of military action, we still find al-Qaida "unabated". Could this be a clue that our efforts in Iraq are misdirected? Apparently, after all the dead and injured troops, lives disrupted, debt incurred, resources wasted, international good-will squandered, and opportunities lost, the American public is still at risk from Islamist terrorism.
Instead of seeing al-Qaida as a nail that needs to be driven into oblivion and our armed forces as the hammer that can do just that, another solution is needed. I would support convening experts in counter-terrorism, international criminal investigation, all aspects of the Middle East and any other pertinent topic to develop a plan of action to quell the threat from fanatical Islamists. Naturally, their informed deliberations and recommendations would have to remain confidential as future actions to counter al-Qaida are prepared, but at least we could develop a plan that had a chance of working. Of course, as actions are taken to abate the intent of al-Qaida to kill some of us and injure others, the new efforts would necessarily be disclosed. Withdrawal from Iraq would be accomplished as an alternative strategy is implemented.
Perhaps, my ideas are naïve. But has an effort like that I described been attempted? If so, why don't we know about it? If not, why not? There has to be a better solution than sending in the troops, which in my estimation is an inappropriate way to counter terrorism.
Monday, June 04, 2007
My Stock is Rising
When I first heard a report on television that the terrorist plot to blow up aviation fuel lines and, perhaps, storage facilities at JFK airport in NYC would have produced destruction worse than the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, I thought about it for maybe two seconds and said to my wife, "Hooey, gasoline pipelines don't blow up and affect a large area. You'll get a bang and fire at the site of the explosion and that's it." How did I know this? Well, common sense, that's how.
This morning an article in the KC Star said pipeline experts disputed federal prosecutors' claims of the vast damage the bombing of JFK fuel facilities would produce. When my wife saw the article, she said, "Look here. You were right about the amount of damage terrorists could do at JFK." Ah, vindication for an opinion. Indeed, in my wife's estimation, my stock is rising.
How could the federal prosecutors thought otherwise? Perhaps, they were hired by that Goodling gal, who favored politics over competence.
This morning an article in the KC Star said pipeline experts disputed federal prosecutors' claims of the vast damage the bombing of JFK fuel facilities would produce. When my wife saw the article, she said, "Look here. You were right about the amount of damage terrorists could do at JFK." Ah, vindication for an opinion. Indeed, in my wife's estimation, my stock is rising.
How could the federal prosecutors thought otherwise? Perhaps, they were hired by that Goodling gal, who favored politics over competence.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Letter to Kansas Congressmen
In December, 2002, I wrote the following to the Kansas congressional delegation to express my views about the gathering war clouds being fomented by the Bush administration:
"I am writing to express my personal feelings towards the Bush administration's apparent preparations for war with Iraq.
I am not comfortable with the United States in the role of aggressor, or openly pursuing a military action against a country that is not a response to overt military aggression by that country against the United States or its allies. I do not support "gun-boat diplomacy" or "brinksmanship". Neither approach to international relations has any place in the 21st Century. I am appalled at national television news media's obsession with war, a disposition apparently fostered by White House and Pentagon staffers. I have not participated in parades or demonstrations against the prospects of war with Iraq, but more and more my sympathies are with the entertainment celebrities, college students and peace activists who are public in their opposition to war with Iraq. I want an alternative to war with Iraq. I feel that a policy of war is unwise. It will not solve the immediate problem, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that it seeks to cure without paying costs that are too severe in terms of the sanctity of human life, economic growth and stability, global good will and other measures of civilized progress.
I urge you and fellow Kansas Congressmen to reevaluate the course being pursued by the Bush Administration. Certainly, there is a more constructive means of dealing with Iraq than threatening war or, heaven forbid, following through with a military attack. We need leadership from Congress on this important issue. The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, the power to declare war was given to Congress, not to the President. Congress can not and will not escape responsibility for Bush's folly of seeking war as a solution to Iraq's behavior."
The only thing in this letter that I regret writing over four years ago is my reference to Iraq's WMDs. I regret that I believed my government when they said Iraq had WMDs. A basic trust has been broken. Never again will I accept a statement by the U.S. government, unless it is corroborated by overwhelming evidence. Taking the word of politicians won't cut it.
I am still opposed to the Iraq War. I oppose the idea of war with Iran. If anything, to heal the breech in our relations with Iran, the first thing we should do is apologize to the Iranian people for the CIA's actions in thwarting two attempts to rid Iran of despotic rulers. Next, we should enter a dialogue with Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al, about the future of the Middle East and what the USA can do to help them, even if that means withdrawing all military forces.
"I am writing to express my personal feelings towards the Bush administration's apparent preparations for war with Iraq.
I am not comfortable with the United States in the role of aggressor, or openly pursuing a military action against a country that is not a response to overt military aggression by that country against the United States or its allies. I do not support "gun-boat diplomacy" or "brinksmanship". Neither approach to international relations has any place in the 21st Century. I am appalled at national television news media's obsession with war, a disposition apparently fostered by White House and Pentagon staffers. I have not participated in parades or demonstrations against the prospects of war with Iraq, but more and more my sympathies are with the entertainment celebrities, college students and peace activists who are public in their opposition to war with Iraq. I want an alternative to war with Iraq. I feel that a policy of war is unwise. It will not solve the immediate problem, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that it seeks to cure without paying costs that are too severe in terms of the sanctity of human life, economic growth and stability, global good will and other measures of civilized progress.
I urge you and fellow Kansas Congressmen to reevaluate the course being pursued by the Bush Administration. Certainly, there is a more constructive means of dealing with Iraq than threatening war or, heaven forbid, following through with a military attack. We need leadership from Congress on this important issue. The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, the power to declare war was given to Congress, not to the President. Congress can not and will not escape responsibility for Bush's folly of seeking war as a solution to Iraq's behavior."
The only thing in this letter that I regret writing over four years ago is my reference to Iraq's WMDs. I regret that I believed my government when they said Iraq had WMDs. A basic trust has been broken. Never again will I accept a statement by the U.S. government, unless it is corroborated by overwhelming evidence. Taking the word of politicians won't cut it.
I am still opposed to the Iraq War. I oppose the idea of war with Iran. If anything, to heal the breech in our relations with Iran, the first thing we should do is apologize to the Iranian people for the CIA's actions in thwarting two attempts to rid Iran of despotic rulers. Next, we should enter a dialogue with Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al, about the future of the Middle East and what the USA can do to help them, even if that means withdrawing all military forces.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
War on Terror Myth Debunked
Defenders of the invasion of Iraq assert that Iraq is a better battlefield than Mainstreet, USA or, in other words, that fighting terrorists in Iraq is preferable to fighting them in the United States. Supporters of the war in Iraq accept either assertion as self-evident, on the assumption that our civilian population and infrastructure are out of harm's way. Using the terms "battlefield" or "fighting" also assumes that the USA is avoiding a military engagement on our soil by taking the fight to the "enemy". The assertion is also an indirect criticism of our armed forces by suggesting that they could not prevent our shores from being assailed by an enemy capable of waging war on our soil.
What features does Iraq have that makes it a better battlefield for the War on Terror?
What advantages do American armed forces have over the terrorists in Iraq? I cannot think of any reason that would make Iraq a better place to fight terrorists than the good old USA. All of the advantages in Iraq are with the terrorists. I can think of several reasons why the USA would make a better battlefield to engage the terrorists.
The Middle Eastern terrorists who may be in hiding in America waiting to commit a terrorist act are not going to fight with rifles, self-propelled grenades and roadside bombs in the USA. They have no means of sustaining guerilla warfare in the USA. They cannot blend in with the indigenous population like they do in Iraq. They could not obtain supplies to sustain armed combat like their logistical network in Iraq obviously provides them. They would be out-numbered in our country, as our soldiers are in Iraq. They cannot invade the USA en masse anyway without an air force or navy, and they could not breach our defenses. We simply have no need to fear or even postulate the possibility of "fighting" terrorists on American soil.
But, Americans are not out of harm's way. Individuals performing acts of terror against Americans are not proscribed by our military presence in Iraq. Rather, it is likely our presence there that gives them the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Muslims without attacking on our soil. Rather than go against our military power, terrorists fight asymmetrically, using weapons such as improvised explosive devices, car or truck bombs, and explosive vests detonated by the wearer, and tactics such as raids, ambushes, kidnappings and murder. These are weapons and tactics not easily countered by military action. The best weapon to fight terrorism is vigilance, which takes many forms, including intelligence, threat detection, border security, surveillance, etc. The military is best suited to countering overt armed action, not covert threats.
It is inane to suggest that fighting in Iraq is better than fighting here. Our military is not keeping America out of harms' way. Our civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have that responsibility, but not even their best efforts can guarantee success.
What features does Iraq have that makes it a better battlefield for the War on Terror?
What advantages do American armed forces have over the terrorists in Iraq? I cannot think of any reason that would make Iraq a better place to fight terrorists than the good old USA. All of the advantages in Iraq are with the terrorists. I can think of several reasons why the USA would make a better battlefield to engage the terrorists.
The Middle Eastern terrorists who may be in hiding in America waiting to commit a terrorist act are not going to fight with rifles, self-propelled grenades and roadside bombs in the USA. They have no means of sustaining guerilla warfare in the USA. They cannot blend in with the indigenous population like they do in Iraq. They could not obtain supplies to sustain armed combat like their logistical network in Iraq obviously provides them. They would be out-numbered in our country, as our soldiers are in Iraq. They cannot invade the USA en masse anyway without an air force or navy, and they could not breach our defenses. We simply have no need to fear or even postulate the possibility of "fighting" terrorists on American soil.
But, Americans are not out of harm's way. Individuals performing acts of terror against Americans are not proscribed by our military presence in Iraq. Rather, it is likely our presence there that gives them the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Muslims without attacking on our soil. Rather than go against our military power, terrorists fight asymmetrically, using weapons such as improvised explosive devices, car or truck bombs, and explosive vests detonated by the wearer, and tactics such as raids, ambushes, kidnappings and murder. These are weapons and tactics not easily countered by military action. The best weapon to fight terrorism is vigilance, which takes many forms, including intelligence, threat detection, border security, surveillance, etc. The military is best suited to countering overt armed action, not covert threats.
It is inane to suggest that fighting in Iraq is better than fighting here. Our military is not keeping America out of harms' way. Our civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have that responsibility, but not even their best efforts can guarantee success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
