|
|
Have Any Other Bright Ideas?
Posted by Stephen Green · 14 October 2002
Reader Schrifty writes: I love good old Western fun, but the reason we're not at war is that there is no identifiable enemy. I'm sure it deflates you, not being able to use all that blustery, wonderful war vocabulary, but these terrorists are just criminals, plain and simple. Armies will never stop them, or even slow them down, but good old-fashioned policework just might. Let's smile when we say that Schrifty is fairly immune to facts. Here are a few for his perusal and your enjoyment: Taliban: Identified and stopped, courtesy of American and allied armed forces. There are more examples, such as in the Philippines and Yemen. I don't mean to neglect the contributions of civilian law enforcement. Their efforts to halt terror money, arrest domestic offenders, and international cooperation with our allies' domestic efforts are invaluable. But if Schrifty thinks the NYPD, brave and well trained as they are, can do anything to protect us from madmen in Baghdad, Riyadh, Tehran, Pyongyang, or Bali, then I'd like to know just what his plan is. Comments
Thomas Jefferson would disagree with Schrifty. Jefferson sent the Navy to deal with the pirates off of Tripoli, not a cadre of investigators. Posted by: Jason Rubenstein at October 14, 2002 04:50 PMJust about anyone would disagree with this silliness. The fact that the terrorists of 9/11 were residing in the US for a brief period of time before the attacks did not make the attacks "based" out of the US. You simply are not going to find terrorist groups of this size being defeated by police forces. its inane. Posted by: Robin Roberts at October 14, 2002 05:08 PMOk, Mr. bin Laden come out with your hands up. No, I really mean it! I'm not kidding! Posted by: Cop at October 14, 2002 05:30 PMTO: All As Ulyses S. [Note: U.S. for "Unconditional Surrender"] Grant put it, when he assumed command of the combined federal armies during our Civil War.... ..."The enemy does not have armies enough to face US." [Note: Caps for emphasis and juxtaposition.] They, the terrorists, are forced to guerilla tactics because they know they cannot win a stand-up fight. Otherwise, they'd be all over US like ugly on an ape. That's why they are going for the occassional, albeit news-worthy, operation; a tanker of Yemen, a night-club in Bali. That's why Bush decided that this was a war on 'terrorism'. Not a war against merely Al Qaeda or the Taliban or Iraq. It's going to go a lot farther than mere geography or names... ...a LOT farther. Falwell may have touched on it with his 'terrorism' comment of last week. But he's not politically correct. He'll say what he things/believes. Just like Stephen here does. The president needs to be a bit more 'cagey'. Especially durinug an election year. Just like Lincoln was 'cagey' about emancipation. This is going to go on for a loooooooong time. Any war where the enemy is employing guerilla tactics is that way. [Note: Read War In the Shadows.] People who don't care what other people think of them are going to speak their minds. People who rely on what other people think of them are not. You may not agree with what someone says, but if they are right....well....you have to ascertain that for yourself. Falwell was 'wrong', in my personal opinion, regarding Muhammed being a 'terrorist'. But maybe he's read more of history than I have. Personally, I think Muhammed was a brigand. And, I think, I can make a sound case to support that. No honest religion can be based on the actions of a thief and a murderer, at least as far as I can tell. However, any Satanist could probably argue the point. Which, now, brings me around to my primary point.... ....if a thief and murderer starts a religion. Isn't that religion to resemble Satan more than it does anything else? Glenn Reynolds commented on how the Muslims in India are all rioting, burning and killing in the streets because of Falwell's comments about their religion being one of violence and death. And he makes the honest and valid point that their actions are providing supporting evidence of the accuracy of Falwell's observations. So.... ....why are we 'ashamed' of Falwell? He seems to be accurate in this instance. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at October 14, 2002 05:53 PMMr Vodka is absolutely right: Denial of sanctuary is one of the most important tools to stopping terrorism. One of the reasons terrorism/guerella warfare has a reputation for infalliablility is because until recently it had a version of sanctuary: The USSR's support. Without this suppport, European terrorism basically shrivelled up and died. The reason Islamic terrorism did not is because it still enjoys sanctuary. Sanctuary is not a guarantee of success: the IRA prevailed despite not having it to any substantial extent (though one could argue that the U.S. provided some aspects of sanctuary). On a related note, I was startled today to discover a new (to me) angle to the 'we must stop Saddam' argument. What if he develops a nuclear capability that prevents us from invading (via blackmail, probably with Isreal as hostage), then the major terrorist and/or drug organizations set up shop there? If that happens, terrorism will certainly become a worldwide calamity such as we have never seen. Posted by: Brian Waxx at October 14, 2002 08:51 PMBrian, I think we should explore the policework option more. I also think we should pursue these people with civil lawsuits. Get the creditors after these people. You mess with the US, and we'll repossess your car, sucker! We should also explore other non-violent methods, namely, after-school specials. Otherwise we'll just be creating more terrorists. "Just say NO to blowing us up!" Hell, it worked for drugs. We should only send in the NYPD as a last resort. They can do it, haven't you seen any movies? They're always chasing down IRA guys, or blowing away tons of German terrorists, even when they aren't wearing any shoes! Now that's tough! They're always killings dozens of guys with uzis, when they're only using handguns with only 1 or 2 bullets left! That's why I'm against the war. If Bush just wanted Saddam dead, just send in one ex-Green Beret who was a former Navy SEAL in the CIA who is out for revenge. These guys can take out like 20 ninjas, and Saddam probably doesn't even have 1 ninja! That would be totally sweet and totally practical. Posted by: scott at October 14, 2002 10:43 PMGee whiz. I'm talking about Interpol, the FBI and the world's various intelligence services - not the damn NYPD. And your examples are bogus. The Taliban weren't terrorists. Nobody says they were. They gave Al Qaeda support, so we obliterated them, but they weren't terrorists. You know that. Al Qaeda - the big one. Terrorists, for sure, but slowed? There is (and this is important) absolutely no credible way you can make that claim. You just have no way of knowing. Some intelligence sources suggest that they're stronger now than they were a year ago, and without Afghan bases, they're a hell of a lot harder to hit. bin Laden - it's been fun watching conservatives claim he's dead with (notice a pattern here?) no credible evidence at all. I hope he is dead, but we simply don't know. Iraq's Ba'ath regime. Again - not terrorists. There are some weak links and I remain open-minded, but this sure doesn't support your point. Yasser Arafat - are you kidding me??? What the hell can an army do to Arafat? He's pretty much unkillable, for any number of stupid political reasons. Any action taken against Arafat will be by diplomats - not generals. The Phillipines were nothing to write home about, and I'm unaware of any military success stories in Yemen. Understand that I'm not anti-military - our military is one amazing machine - but it can't wipe out terrorism any more than it can wipe out drugs, cancer or poverty. Thanks for the top billing though! Very exciting! Posted by: schrifty at October 14, 2002 11:19 PMschrify is correct. Years of experience in Northern Island showed that the police , in the form of Special Branch, Army Intelligence, and the local police force were the most effective way of dealing with terrorism in the community. I beg to differ with Expat and Schrifty: There is being imposed a false dichotomy. Counter-insurgency (to use a slightly discredited term) requires BOTH war-fighting AND police-work. It is hardly a case of "either, or." The Malayan Counter-insurgency, generally considered one of the most effective examples of "COIN", was written up by the Brits, as something of a text-book case. It required the use of good police-work, to track down the key leaders and links into the government, but also direct action by army (often commando) units against larger forces, as well as to cut links to outside suppliers. Malaya benefited further by the Communist insurgents not being directly supported from the outside (as the VC and Afghans were). Hardly cut-and-dried police work! It also required certain other activities which would probably make folks like Schrifty blanche---for example, massive relocation of the population into new population centers, where they could be more easily controlled. Drying up the sea in which the guerilla swims, to paraphrase Mao. Furthermore, the US military's track record in counter-insurgency is actually remarkably good. Again, not necessarily the proudest moments in American history, but certainly they've been effective against: The Indians (various tribes) Just a thought.... Posted by: Dean at October 15, 2002 05:09 AMExpat: By all means, let's pursue the Northern Ireland solution: we can make a special set of Senatorial seats for Al Quaeda (and allow them to vote while making them exempt from the oath of office!), give Saddam Hussein a say in thejudicial appointment process, and otherwise bring them in to an inclusive government. All they'd have to do is sign a treaty saying they'd disarm...REALLY they will! After all, it's done soo much good in Northern Ireland... Schrifty, hate to tell it to you, but when foreign nationals attack someone else's country-anyone else's country- it's called an ACT OF WAR, not a 'crime'. You do not dispatch Interpol (BTW, if they would do such a nifty job...why the sudden surge of arrests after 9-11? Why weren't these people busted beforehand? When were they supposed to start?) to deal with an act of war, you send the 82nd... Posted by: David Paglia at October 15, 2002 05:32 AM...Hmmm...Murderers, criminals, and America-haters in public office...All we'd have to do is get one to drive off of a bridge while drunk and drown a campaign staffer, and I'd have this tremendous sense of deja vu. Posted by: David Paglia at October 15, 2002 05:36 AMDavid - you don't really hate to tell me, but you're wrong anyway. The phrase "foreign national" is really a great example of what's wrong with the whole military model for dealing with terrorism. The terrorists we face today, and increasingly in the coming years, will be geographical free agents. The 9/11 hijackers still have identifiable countries of origin, but as you know, America's armies have no plans to attack Egypt or Saudi Arabia. You can bet your bottom dollar though, that intelligence agencies worldwide are stepping up their resources in those places. Expat said it better than I can, but I believe that the usefulness of the U.S. army will be minized over the coming decades (in the war on terror, at least) to the occasional special forces mission, or more likely, the occasional Tomahawk, all at the direction of police forces. Using the word "war" to describe this minimal and directed involvement is a misuse of the language. What someone should point out to counter my argument is that the use of the word "war" implies a level of commitment as well as a method of engagement. If you believe that a war can be fought by accountants and analysts instead of smart bombs and ground troops then have at it - call it a war! Posted by: schrifty at October 15, 2002 09:05 AMDamn semantics. Here is my internalized, self-serving definition of this war that we are in. Maybe it can help...maybe not. When I think that we are at war, I think that it represents a state change in our thoughts and actions in regards to those who are credible threats to us or our interests. In the past, non-war state, our intentions were to try to locate and track terrorist organizations and sponsor states, and try to create intelligence assets that could possibly warn us when something bad was going to happen, so we could prevent it. We were very reactive, and not terrible serious. Our country did not give much thought to the problem, did not listen to any alarmist warnings, and instead worried about Conduit, economy, etc. We knew that these people/organizations existed, knew that they may even be operating in our country, knew that they had done bad things, but we were not willing to dirty our hands and DO something about it. A couple of arrests, some civil trials, allowing lawyers to pass notes from leaders to soldiers, and a cruise missile or two...that was it. After 9/11, and a declared war, our intentions, goals, means, and will have all taken a dramatic change. We are now willing to do whatever it takes to ensure, as best we can, that nothing like that will happen again. This includes: 1. Arresting known terrorists in our country. That is what I think the war is. The actual bang-bang boom part is a small part of what is really going on. Since we now take this seriously, it has caused the terrorists to completely change their SOP. They no longer have a base country (Afghanistan). They lack their charismatic leader. Their money is gone. Their travel is restricted, and much more dangerous. They are being actively hunted, instead of merely sometimes glanced at. All of this makes it hard for them to operate, and increases the chances of them being caught before, during, and after any actual terrorist act. Will it ever stop all terrorism? Of course not. Has it stopped a lot of terrorism in this country? Yes. Can we expect perfection? Hell no, perfection does not exist. Why should that stop us from trying? Blah blah blah. Bottom line: Making it a war changed our intentions and SOP, making new terrorist attacks much less likely. And that is the bleeding point. -Donut ps. If you allow wild dogs to roam your property, are you not responsible for their actions? The Taliban was... Posted by: Donut at October 15, 2002 10:34 AMThe terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, etc, are the _sword_ of the enemy. Nations like Iraq, Syria, and "Saudi" Arabia are the _heart_ of the enemy. Swordfights are won by blocking the sword and stabbing the heart. Unless you stab the heart, you will wind up blocking the sword forever. Eventually, you will lose. Donut, Not sure if your comment about wild dogs was aimed at me, but if so, I agree. I never meant to say that the attack on the Taliban wasn't justified, just that it wasn't really an attack on terrorism - it was a far, far easier thing to accomplish, and shouldn't be considered a sign of success in the war on terrorism. So far, the only signs of success I've seen have been arrests of high-profile terrorists by - you guessed it - police organizations. Posted by: schrifty at October 15, 2002 11:55 AMExpat said it better than I can, but I believe that the usefulness of the U.S. army will be minized over the coming decades (in the war on terror, at least) to the occasional special forces mission, or more likely, the occasional Tomahawk, all at the direction of police forces. Using the word "war" to describe this minimal and directed involvement is a misuse of the language. Not to worry, Shrifty; the Communist Chinese will supply us with a solid redefinition of mass-scale warfare before this century is half over. At that point, we will hopefully have allied with a newly democratic-republican Middle East--one of the most admirable lights at the end of this grim tunnel. You dismiss the importance of cultural gestation to terrorism, as well; to brandish the "there'll always be bad apples" argument, insisting that organizations bent upon slaughtering innocents spring up more or less randomly, is to deny the terrifying discrepancy between the West and the Middle East. Mass murderers like Timothy McVeigh are universally condemned here (and confidently executed), whereas over there they are praised, set as role models and privy to government sponsorship. That environment literally breeds bin Ladens. So until a culture of death is smashed through a societal root-canal, it will continue to produce evil--in the information age, evil is represented most tactily by terrorists. The key is the expansion of liberty, which the American-led war should seek to accomplish--that will truly achieve national security, the current reactionary justification for this war. The absence of freedom is a foothold for evil; either a dictator will threaten those around him or his people will succumb to horrible tenets in their desperation. Germany, Japan and Italy serve as perfect examples demonstrating both of the hazards caused by oppression. Military defeat, occupation and cultural revitalization was the only solution. Human nature, for better or for worse, hasn't changed since then. Finally: who could possibly believe that bin Laden is alive after the hedging and stuttering of his lieutenants, delivering excuse after excuse about his appearance on camera? Such an ego-maniac couldn't bear to lose his audience, infirmed or not. Doesn't anyone remember a top al Qaeda operative informing al Jazeera of bin Laden's imminent video resurfacing after the Torah Bora operation, only to provide but a clunky cut-and-paste of "greatest hits"? My guess is that somebody told them that the West was wise to their erstwhile scheme, what with Weekend at Bernie's. Michael, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your response. Are you saying that I'm minimizing the importance of cultural gestation by refusing to acknowledge the defeat of the Taliban as a victory in the "war on terrorism?" Maybe a little bit, but think about the word "gestation." I admit eagerly that Afghanistan helped to gestate Al Qaeda - I think that's been pretty well established - but once gestation is complete the baby takes on a life of it's own. Did taking out the Taliban hurt Al Qaeda by removing some material support? Sure it did. Did taking out the Taliban help Al Qaeda by bringing out massive support from all over the rest of the world? Just as certainly. How does it balance out? I don't know and neither do you. Neither does the pundit hosting this conversation. That's pretty well indisputable. So how can anyone call the defeat of the Taliban a victory in the war on terrorism? At the very best, it's premature, and at worst the exact opposite of truth. As to your point about bin Laden, there is some evidence to suggest that he's dead, but it's inconclusive. Too inconclusive to my mind to support the argument that the military will be much use in fighting this "war." Finally, why the lecture on the expansion of liberty? I think it's just as important as you do - I just don't think it'll be our military that makes it happen. Posted by: schrifty at October 15, 2002 12:32 PMMaybe a little bit, but think about the word "gestation." True; my reference this organized rising of evil (the Middle East culture of death) is that of a union that stubbornly persists until its interruption. Symbiosis? Gestation would better explain the inevitable rearing of outwardly offensive horrors from within dictatorships.
If the Taliban's defeat is considered subject to breaking out the bubbler, then all of us are most likely in agreement. But I would consider Afghanistan's liberation (still ongoing, mind you) a victory. The world's most active terrorist organization has lost its largest factory--for all their practiced autonomy, al Qaeda could not have operated at their current level without a smidgen of centralization. Of course, with most of the Middle East receptive to terrorists, the Taliban's demise is of strategically diminished importance; the fox can find many holes in which to scramble. Thus it is necessary to militarily challenge the very existence of those regimes that would harbor the scattered elements of al Qaeda. This brings us to your last statement.
That's ahistorical. The lecture is to reiterate what has actually caused liberty to blossom in the past century. A police action, strictly defined, has never been the primary agent for wholesale cultural change! When the vanguard of liberty (read: America) has needed to enact creative destruction (enter ex-Axis nations as the best examples), military force was the tool successfully employed. As for the pitch of warfare these days, America simply hasn't used its armed forces enough. Michael, I agree with every word you wrote, right up until the end. I'm sure you don't need me to diagram the orthogonal natures of the axis powers vs. modern terrorists. Given that the problem is completely different, why shouldn't the solution be completely different? Going back to the crux of the debate you end with "America simply hasn't used its armed forces enough," but I stand by my original point that we can't use our armed forces any more than we currently do because we don't know where to use them or who to use them on, and we probably never will. An individual here, a cell there - hardly problems to be solved with tanks and tomcats. I believe that events in the past year have born this out. One slight clarification - I predict not that "police actions" (reminiscent of Bosnia) will beat terrorism, but good old-fashioned policework - a gaggle of gumshoes sitting around computer terminals, finding the needle in the haystack. And arresting it. Posted by: schrifty at October 15, 2002 02:14 PMDean, I just went back and read your comments again - you make good points that are worth acknowledging but I maintain that counter-insurgency is still, essentially, tied to the ground. Native Americans, the Filipinos, the Hukbalahap (which I had to look up - interesting story), and the VC were all tied to relatively specific territorries. Terrorists are truly global. It is my contention that this distinction is sufficient to render any military action models, including counter-insurgency, effectively useless. The Interpol/CIA/Mossad model, which has had much experience and some success tracking down international conspiracies is more appropriate. Posted by: schrifty at October 15, 2002 02:35 PMThe point made by Dean about Malaya is worth examining. The conventional troops achieved very little in large scale sweeps in the jungle. Now, what unit would you pick to do this job? The 82nd airborne? Of course not. Posted by: ExpatEgghead at October 16, 2002 01:14 AMGiven that the problem is completely different, why shouldn't the solution be completely different? My point is that the foundations for this conflict are not different. They do, in fact, reflect a timeless human condition: bondage. Terrorism is simply the method of our technological and sociological time period, and ultimately, should likewise be treated as the superficial element that it is. As such, the causes (significant societal breakdown towards evil) must be met with a reliable antidote: military overthrow of the very regimes exacting this mind-altering oppression.
I understand. Clarification notwithstanding, your suggestion seems to interpret terrorism as an aberration of Middle East culture, rather than an obvious product; as if HamasalAqsaFatahalQaedaHezbollahetcetera are viewed by their peers as outlaws, and that the Middle East would rejoice tomorrow after international G-Men put those groups behind bars today. But we should realize that this won't happen. The Middle East is enveloped in a culture of death, a combination of moral blindness and murderously jealous rage. Black is white; murder becomes a path to justice. Incarceration of the terrorist crust would do nothing to destroy these cultural roots. Again: the weapon is terrorism but the target is society-molding or militaristic ("Saudi" Arabia or Iraq, respectively) totalitarian government. Under your vision, we'd be clipping the toenails of a rabid beast instead of simply putting the dangerous creature down. For every terrorist that would be crushed, the fertile cultural conditions would bear another to take his place. And that's assuming that police work had even the barest ghost of a chance in that part of the world. Where would civilian aid--witnesses and lookouts for the common good, a keystone in Western investigation--come from? Certainly not from those people. Dissidents are murdered from Baghdad to Jenin, Riyadh to Tehran. And those are the ones who aren't caught up in an infectious, Nazilike, brainwashed daze. we can't use our armed forces any more than we currently do because we don't know where to use them or who to use them on, and we probably never will.
Even more simply put, and this statement redefines the war on terror as the herald for a paradigm shift: this world is too small for dictatorships in any form. Period. Posted by: Michael Ubaldi at October 16, 2002 07:34 AMIt seems to me that schrifty needs to be arguing for increased intelligence efforts in locating the terrorists so that the military/special forces/police can deal with the situation. As for US police agencies they are almost exclusively reactionary forces that sit around computer terminals, find the needle in the haystack and arresting it. Generally they are not very good at dealing with organizations of this size, let alone the proactive nature of such a policing action. Sure arrests have now been made, but only in respose to 9/11 intelligence and leads. The police have limitations-- if intelligence indicates a domestic problem the police can be used for, fine. If not, then deal with it with the special forces or regular military. Robert, I agree that we need a vastly increased intelligence and law enforcement budgets, though not any faster than we can fix our currently broken intelligence and law enforcements apparatuses. I don't agree that police are "not very good at dealing with organizations of this size." Is Al Qaeda any bigger than the various crime families of the early part of this century that we fought very effectively? Who knows? I sure don't, and I don't think anyone else does either. I'll grant that the analogy is imperfect - the global nature of terrorism makes it a lot tougher - but then, we're a lot smarter. And we have computers. You say that the police have limitations, though you don't exactly state what they are. I'll grant that they're not very good at establishing beachheads or disrupting supply lines but those things aren't really part of this"war". I've granted earlier in this conversation that special forces could play a role, but it'll be at the direction of CIA directors rather than generals. That's the key, maybe - special forces could play a role in beating back terrorism, but they'll be doing it at the direction of intelligence and police forces, not running the show. To me, that's a mandatory part of any useful definition of "war" - hence my original statement that we're not really at war. The sooner we drop the inappropriate (but blustery and fun!) metaphor (which will probably never happen) the more effective we'll be at beating the terrorists. Posted by: schrifty at October 16, 2002 04:51 PMMichael, They do, in fact, reflect a timeless human condition: bondage. Terrorism and other dysfunctional societal evolutions like fascism may both have bondage at their core (very literary!), but their means of expression are absolutely 100% orthogonal to each other. Terrorism hides in the shadows while fascism works out in the open. It's not unreasonable to surmise that the methods of dealing with them might be different, too. your vision, we'd be clipping the toenails of a rabid beast instead of simply putting the dangerous creature down I'm not sure I understand - are you suggesting that we invade every nation that produces terrorists? That's untenable, even if you leave France and Germany out of the mix. Are you recommending that we wipe out Egypt, "Saudi" Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Morocco and most of Israel? Where would civilian aid--witnesses and lookouts for the common good, a keystone in Western investigation--come from? Presumably, from paid informants, and the strengthened electronic surveillance technology that I would pour more and more money into, instead of pouring it uselessly into the already bloated defense budget. this statement redefines the war on terror as the herald for a paradigm shift: this world is too small for dictatorships in any form. Period. Well, I guess you are recommending that we wipe out Egypt, "Saudi" Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Morocco and most of Israel (what about France and Germany?! Next to you, Bush Jr. is a pacifist Tibetan monk!) All right, well that would be war. I stand corrected. But that will never happen (at least until a dirty bomb goes off in downtown NY.) I've just been arguing that the current "war on terrorism" is no war at all. Marc Posted by: schrifty at October 16, 2002 05:12 PMThere are or have been terrorists that are not Muslim. The IRA, ETA, Red Brigade are all European home grown organisations. No rational argument exists for using the military as the primary agency for eliminating these. |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"I'm Chris Muir, and I approved this blog."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
