Centerfield

Personally, I would estimate the threat as lasting 50 to 100 years.
The cold war lasted for about 50, and although the communist did have their fanatical followers, Marx never spoke to any angels or ascended directly to heaven. (That is of course assuming we don't engage in open warfare before that time.)

How long did the Europeans fight over which variations of Christianity?

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 2, 2006 08:55 PM

How long did the Europeans fight over which variations of Christianity?

Well, if you consider Ireland part of Europe, it would seems as if that fight only ended in the last several years.

Posted by: AR at January 3, 2006 09:26 AM

I'm more inclined to think that it's here to stay, much like the "war on drugs." It'll be pre-eminent at least until another superpower nation emerges as a serious threat to US dominance. In the meantime, we're the big bad wolf to large parts of the 3rd world, that's just the way it is, regardless of how big and how bad we actually are.

I don't see muslim antipathy towards first world largely judeo-christian capitalist nations waning any time soon. And if and when and where it does wane, it'll be because some form of semi-democratic capitalism takes hold, making local opportunity more attractive than tilting at windwills. (See Don Quixote.)

But unless terrorists get serious WMDs, delivery, and a more substantial following among people of means, it's unlikely to be much more than a nuisance threat, possibly more potential than actual.

I know I'm at serious variance with those so perturbed by 9/11 that they think the only way to take terrorism seriously is to constantly perseverate about it, and throw the whole kitchen sink at it.

I don't think that's a sensible way to attack what's likely to be a chronic multi-generational affliction for both religious and socioeconomic reasons. To take the threat of terrorism seriously, we should do our best to see it for exactly what it is. And all I really mean when I say that is that it should be regarded as something less than a boogeyman of a political trump card in a game where our putative "leaders" battle to prove that they are more against terrorism than the next guy. None of our leaders is pro-terrorism, and I despise anyone who makes such an argument against someone who is trying to point out that we have a whole host of deserving national priorities.

Instead of wasting hot ait and wringing hands over nail clippers and yarn scissors on planes, we should acknowledge that in this vast nation there's no real way to prevent a serious, determined, well-organized, and bellicose group from wreaking some sort of havoc. This doesn't mean that we therefore should not be watchful, but along wth being watchful we also acknowledge gratefully that at the present time, on our domestic soil, there don't seem to be too many people with the will and the means to wreak such havoc, as evidenced by the 4+ year absence of a domestic terrorist event.

And let's notice that on 9/9/2001, it was possible that 20 determined zealots could have initiated a successful series of coordinated plane-bombing attacks using no more than say ball-point pens and strong fishing wire. Then let's also notice that as of 9/12/2001, the complete success of such an attack would be unlikely without guns, never mind box cutters, scissors, knitting needles, etc.

Posted by: bk at January 3, 2006 10:37 AM

I think the threat of terrorism will last forever. Americans tend to think of terrorism as beginning in the 1970s or so, but in fact, political terrorism has always been with us. During the early part of the 20th century, anarachism was a problem both here and in Europe. There were Russian terrorists long before the Bolsheviks. And WW I was essentially started by a terrorist. Obviously, the degree of threat has ebbed and flowed and more recently terrorism has been directed toward "civilians" more than in the past. That's the problem with treating it as a "war" on terrorism. Strictly speaking, it's a war that can never be won because there will always be some group--be it domestic militias or whomever that will resort to or at least threaten to resort to violence. Technology has brought the world closer together and made all of us more vulnerable. Terrorism is to us today what nuclear war was to the fifties and sixties; an ever-present threat always hanging over us. Even today, while the chances of a superpower nuclear exchange are pretty remote, you certainly can't say the nuke threat (and I'm not even talking about terrorists) is over, given that you have more and more countries acquiring nuclear weapons.

And I think Osama bin Laden is fairly irrelevant at this point to the threat of Islmamic terrorism. Even if he died, there would be plenty of replacements to pick up the slack.

Posted by: Marc at January 3, 2006 10:42 AM

Americans are complacent about terrorism?

It's shoved in our faces and down our throats every damn day. We're told that the POTUS can do pretty much whatever he likes in the name of stopping terrorism. Our taxes are jacked up at the local level to pay for federal mandated homeland security to guard against terrorism.

Exactly where are we complacent?

Posted by: carla at January 3, 2006 10:50 AM

Carla,

I was trying to be diplomatic, but now that you've challenged me, I'll say that I think it's mostly the left that is complacent about terror. They seem to think that 9/11 was a one-time thing, we're vigilant now, and we can withdraw our defenses to our shoreline.

On the other hand (we centrists have two) many on the right sound so petrified of terror that they're willing to waive the constitution and act as if we're under martial law--as long as a Republican is president.

Posted by: rickheller at January 3, 2006 11:10 AM

Rick, the fact that "many on the right" have a difference of opinion about what exactly the Constitution provides, allows, and requires does NOT mean that they are "willing to waive the constitution" and accept martial law.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 3, 2006 11:16 AM

I was trying to be diplomatic, but now that you've challenged me, I'll say that I think it's mostly the left that is complacent about terror. They seem to think that 9/11 was a one-time thing, we're vigilant now, and we can withdraw our defenses to our shoreline.

I'm supposing by your response here Rick that you mean "isolationist" when you're using the word "complacent". You appear to be saying that the left wants to ignore terrorists that are plotting overseas.

Given the fact that the left has generally given hearty support to the effort in Afghanistan, worked to end the war in Iraq (which is a terrorism rallying point), pushed the work to end Al Qaida and undermine terrorist recruitment and training efforts from fanatical religious extremist groups and begged the federal government to fund the homeland security mandates its handed down....I'm curious as to how you've reached your conclusion.

That's not to say that there aren't some on the left who you couldn't hold up as an individual example. The left rarely walks in lockstep...which is why they're the left. But in general, the left of center folks have pretty much supported that which I've outlined above.

Posted by: carla at January 3, 2006 12:11 PM

Carla, forgive me but I've not noticed "hearty support" by liberals for the war in Afghanistan. I've seen partisan sniping at the President for how it was conducted, but no "I'm for this thing, let's kick Taliban butt". And you and other liberals have generally expressed a strong preference for Clinton-style law enforcement measures rather than Bush-style military actions to combat terrorism. A valid debate, to be sure, but hardly "hearty support" for the war in Afghanistan. To quote you:

"Further, liberals tend to believe that going to war against feelings (terrorism) and entities other than nation states is a grave error.

Personally I believe Clinton's approach (law enforcement and covert military operations) were a much more effective way to deal with Islamofacism and terrorism for a number of reasons. We didn't damage ties with important allies, we didn't incite floods of new recruits to terrorist groups and hundreds of thousands of civilians didn't have to die at the hands of our military."

Of course, our military has not killed "hundreds of thousands of civilians", and most of the new terrorist recruits have flooded to Iraq rather than over here, but that debate is beyond the scope of this thread.

If you want to debate law enforcement versus military enforcement to oppose the perpetrators of September 11, we can certainly have that debate. But please don't suggest you or liberals were ever "heartily" in favor of even the Afghanistan war.

I do agree with you that opposition to particular government policies is not itself proof of a subjective motivation to let terrorists win or an indication that you don't take it seriously, any more than a belief that the President is within his constitutional and appropriate powers to do what the NSA is doing is an indication that I don't care about civil liberties or want to tear up the constitution. They are just different policy positions taken by free people in a healthy democracy. Now, I feel at least as strongly that my policy positions are the right ones as you do about yours, but that should not impugn either of our motives or standing as Americans.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 3, 2006 01:10 PM

Carla, forgive me but I've not noticed "hearty support" by liberals for the war in Afghanistan. I've seen partisan sniping at the President for how it was conducted, but no "I'm for this thing, let's kick Taliban butt".

If you haven't seen hearty support for going into Afghanistan and undoing the Taliban..then frankly you just haven't paid attention. I am aware of very few left leaning Americans who didn't support that invasion. In terms of "partisan sniping" at how the war is conducted...one man's partisan sniping is another man's legitimate criticism. As you may or may not be aware..the Taliban is still very much in existence and wielding power in Afghanistan.

If you want to debate law enforcement versus military enforcement to oppose the perpetrators of September 11, we can certainly have that debate. But please don't suggest you or liberals were ever "heartily" in favor of even the Afghanistan war.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that there has been a general hearty support for the invasion of Afghanistan by those on the left. The law enforcement approach that you quoted from me above is my belief in the best way to generally go after terrorism. Afghanistan is one military exception as Al Qaida camps and training were being helped along by the Taliban. Clinton used the military to go after them as well, which I agreed with.

I do agree with you that opposition to particular government policies is not itself proof of a subjective motivation to let terrorists win or an indication that you don't take it seriously, any more than a belief that the President is within his constitutional and appropriate powers to do what the NSA is doing is an indication that I don't care about civil liberties or want to tear up the constitution. They are just different policy positions taken by free people in a healthy democracy. Now, I feel at least as strongly that my policy positions are the right ones as you do about yours, but that should not impugn either of our motives or standing as Americans.

Agreed. I think its different approaches to achieve the same sort of goals, in general.

The NSA issue crosses the line for me as much for the illegality as the civil liberties, however. But that's for another thread.

Posted by: carla at January 3, 2006 02:21 PM

Not to digress from the main point (ok, yes I am)I think the debate about what the left believes illustrates how easy it is to be selective in your interpretation of what one side or the other thinks. One problem is the assumption that there is such a thing as a monolithic "left" or "right" when, of course, it all depends on perspective. For example, one could look at publications like The New Republic and The Nation as both being on the "left" but they are quite different in their perspectives and opinions. The same goes for the right. So, to say the left believes this or the right believes that is generally too simplistic.

There are, and were, a number of people on the left that think that the terrorist threat was cooked up by the Bush Administration. But these are primarily those on the far left,such as Michael Moore, etc. Most "mainstream" liberals--in which I would classify Carla--recognize that terrorism is a legitimate threat but largely disagree with the Administration's policy to deal with it.

I don't think this constitutes "complacency." I personally think that some liberals are unrealistic in their belief that you can protect against terrorism without some compromise in civil liberties and without getting your hands dirty. At the same time, I also think that some people are too eager to make the war on terrorism a crusade and ignore the dangers in that as well.

Posted by: Marc at January 3, 2006 02:27 PM

Also, Rick says Bush gets some credit for there not being another attack. I don't mean to attack Bush here, but I don't know if you can give him or anyone else credit. We don't really know why there hasn't been another attack. It will probably be years before we know, if ever, why there hasn't been. It might turn out that this was simply the lull before the storm. I'm not trying to bash Bush, but just pointing out that it is hard to evaluate something like this without some perspective. And, let's face it, some of the things that Bush has done would have happened regardless of who was in office. (Obviously I'm not referring to Iraq.) Perhaps, even some of the domestic wiretapping.

Posted by: Marc at January 3, 2006 02:32 PM

re:hearty support on the left for invading Afghanistan

I don't recall much dissent on invading Afghanistan from anyone. But neither do I recall any particular instances of unusual heartiness on the part of those on the left, or claims of the same, vuntil after we invaded Iraq.

Invading Afghanistan was an obvious no-brainer, and IMO, no one gets any credit for supporting it. What? One is supposed to be some sort of military, political, or policy genius, or opinion leader, for supporting going after AQ and the Taliban who supported them? Supporting the afghan invasion took about as much sense, vision, and courage as supporting a staunch @ss-wiping policy in the period immediately following the taking of a dump.

Posted by: bk at January 3, 2006 02:35 PM

We've had various types of terrorism domestically for more than 100 years so why would the next 100 be any different?

Posted by: Marcus at January 3, 2006 02:38 PM

Given the fact that the left has generally given hearty support to the effort in Afghanistan, worked to end the war in Iraq (which is a terrorism rallying point), pushed the work to end Al Qaida and undermine terrorist recruitment and training efforts from fanatical religious extremist groups and begged the federal government to fund the homeland security mandates its handed down

Here I'd just like to point out a common misunderstanding on both the left and the right about how you actually go about "undermining recruitment and training efforts from fanatical religious groups." Of course, everyone wants to do that. But how you actually achieve that effect is the hard part. It's easy to say, "I'll work with other states so that they do not allow jihadists to organize fund, recruit, plan, and organize within their borders"; it's another thing entirely to actually get those states to comply when it goes against their own interests (and in some cases vital interests) to control the terrorists in their midst.

Remember that for the last thirty years, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, American foreign policy had established a precedent-- from Carter and Reagan to Bush Clinton and Bush-- of withdrawal in the face of terrorist action. The jihadists belief (and I can say this with conviction because I've personally spoken with more than a dozen jihadists, unlike most others on this thread) was that the US was a "paper tiger" or a "white elephant"-- powerful, in theory, but weak when it ultimately mattered; rich, but decadent-- simply unwilling to sacrifice blood or treasure. That's why our traditional "allies" in the region-- from Musharraf's Pakistan to King Fahd's Saudi Arabia-- may have told successive US Administrations that they were working with us, but then actively allowed the terrorists to recruit, organize, and finance free of interference. And our adversaries-- from Assad's Syria, Rafsanjani's Iran, Qadaffi's Libya, and Saddam's Iraq-- actively supported those terrorist organizations across the board. And in many cases, they did so because it allowed them to deflect attacks that would otherwise go against their regime.

So the problem wasn't so easy as simply "working with" other states to influence their behavior. In many cases, we had to change our reputation and force those states to understand that America was serious this time, and that we would not tolerate their support-- direct or indirect-- of the jihadists. But, again, how do you make people realize that you're willing to sacrifice when your last three decades have been about demonstrating that we won't sacrifice?

Well, according to George Friedman of Stratfor, one way was to go out and do it: demonstrate new American resolve by going out and destroying one of those regimes, to put them all on notice that the US can and will act decisively in defense of our interests. And so Hussein's Iraq was chosen as the showcase.

And, initially, we did influence the behaviors of the rogue states: Musharraf is now in bed with us (whether he likes it or not), and has the assasination attempts to show for it. Qadaffi folded his hand, ended his quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups. Crown Prince Abdullah's National Guard got into more than a dozen firefights with jihadists in 2004 alone. Even Iran and Syria mitigated their behavior, slightly.

Now because we've thus far proven incapable of subduing the insurgency in Iraq, many of those regimes are now changing their behavior yet again, once more reverting to their previous positions, but that's a subject for a separate thread. As is how much the system will change if a Free Iraq emerges from the ashes.

Unfortunately, because the Administration chose to make its case for the War in Iraq on the phantom grounds of WMDs and Saddam's support for Al Qaeda, a lot of Americans don't realize what the War was really about: demonstrating American resolve in order to influence the rogue regimes of the region. They get to pretend that you can simply "work" with foreign countries and they happily agree to the same things that we want.

I have found numerous war critics on the left and right who believe that we should work with other countries to "end" recruiting, training, and financial support for the jihadists. That's easy. I have yet to hear one of them actually tell me how they would go about influencing, say, Musharraf to have clamped down on A.Q. Khan's nuclear-dispensing network without the stick of the "Thunder Run" to influence.

Posted by: Bobby at January 3, 2006 03:14 PM

Carla,

My sense is that as President Bush has made Iraq the "central front" in the War on Terror, many liberals have come to belittle the entire war on terror. Yes, most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan. But that was four years ago. What have they been doing lately?

They have been more focused on civil liberties than national security. That's true, at least, of the loudest liberals. Perhaps it's related to the way the media likes to frame conflict, but I see it on blogs as well which are not filtered by the media.

Posted by: rickheller at January 3, 2006 03:44 PM

Bobby,

Thank you for that very sound analysis. It always seemed to me that Americans ASSUME that what is in our interests is in every other country's interest as well. And that is obviously not the case.

The problem is, as a liberal democracy, it's always going to be difficult for the United States to follow a consistent course of action that entails loss of blood or treasure. Eventually, we ARE going to get tired of it and want to go away. Any affluent democracy is going to have a hard time maintaining a war footing. So, the jihadists are correct in a way--we are a paper tiger in the sense that it is difficult to correlate our power with our resolve.

I think this is one of the factors that our leaders ought to take account of when setting out on a course of action. Some kinds of policies are simply not realistic for the United States--essentially anything that involves a drawn out commitment. In a sense, this suggests that a lot of our Cold War commitments were bluffs--would we really have been willing to fight a nuclear war to save Europe once the Soviets had the ability to hit the US?

One of the problems that flows from this, I think, and that makes the problem circular in a way is that, because of this "fear of commitment" so to speak, presidents don't tell the truth to Americans about what is involved. LBJ wanted us to think Viet Nam would be quick and easy and Bush pretty much did the same thing in Iraq. They both knew that telling the public that these would be long and difficult struggles would guarantee that there wouldn't be much support. On the other hand, by not being straight with the public, they guaranteed that support would wane when things went bad. Essentially, it seems to me that Bush, like LBJ, gambled that Iraq would indeed be a larger version of the Gulf War--that we would go in, get rid of Saddam, and get out pretty quickly. Whether he believed it or not is another question.

Alternatively, what you see (a la Clinton) are presidents doing things that don't require much risk or commitment (ie, bombing Kosovo and refusing to commit ground troops). These policies may be less efficacious but they avoid the problem of having to make a significant commitment.

Posted by: Marc at January 3, 2006 03:48 PM

Random points:

Alternatively, what you see (a la Clinton) are presidents doing things that don't require much risk or commitment (ie, bombing Kosovo and refusing to commit ground troops). These policies may be less efficacious but they avoid the problem of having to make a significant commitment.

It's called "lip service." As Bobby points out, talk is cheap. Results are what count.

Also, Rick says Bush gets some credit for there not being another attack. I don't mean to attack Bush here, but I don't know if you can give him or anyone else credit. We don't really know why there hasn't been another attack.

Terrorist attacks have been prevented in both the United States and Europe due to the heightened security and increased intelligence efforts resulting from 9/11, the Homeland Security Act, and other actions. At least some of those preventions have been connected to the NSA intercept program. Credit whom you wish--or don't. But attacks have been definitely been prevented due to increased government efforts.

The organized anti-war left was against invading Afghanistan. This includes such major left-labelled groups as MoveOn.org. It's real damn easy to point to many left-wing orgs that opposed Afghanistan, and real damn tough to find any that openly supported the invasion before it was a done deal. Obviously, the opposition or support of individuals is their own, and claiming that all on one side or another believe or support or whatever as a monolithic bloc is, to be kind, simplistic. As is thinking that there's only left-right-middle, etc. Pigeon-holing is for pigeons.

Posted by: Tully at January 3, 2006 05:21 PM

My sense is that as President Bush has made Iraq the "central front" in the War on Terror, many liberals have come to belittle the entire war on terror.

First part of your sentence -- yes. And stupidly so. Iraq was not one of the major supporters of jihadist terrorism -- way behind Afghnistan, Iran, Sauda Arabia wahhabists, etc. To make the "Central Front" a place where we have so many disadvantages does not make a lot of sense.

Second part -- arghhhh!!! Criticizing the way Iraq has been handled, or the mess of homeland security (9/11 Commission grades, anyone?), or the screwups of alleged terrorist prosecutions, or that the Terror Alerts suddenly stopped after the presidential election, or getting information through torture, and other criticisms of the way the War on Terror has been handled IS NOT the same as belittling the War on Terror.

(And I'm assuming you mean "War On Terror" as the generally-accepted political label for the fight against Al Qaeda and violent jihadist terrorists and their supporters, aka the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (G-SAVEtm), as opposed to literally going to war on the feeling of terror, which liberals AND conservatives would love to belittle except that their political opponents would instantly accuse them of surrendering in the War On Terror.)

Posted by: Oberon at January 3, 2006 06:07 PM

At least some of those preventions have been connected to the NSA intercept program

What preventions were those? I had heard the blow to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches had been disrupted by the NSA no-warrant program, but not of others.

(Disclaimer -- that is an honest question, not a rhetorical criticisms.)

Posted by: Oberon at January 3, 2006 06:20 PM

I can say this with conviction because I've personally spoken with more than a dozen jihadists, unlike most others on this thread

You realize that the government must now be listening to your phone calls and reading your e-mail, yes?

;-)

Posted by: Oberon at January 3, 2006 06:22 PM

Oberon, the NRA intercept progam has also been publicly credited (by the NYT and their "anonymous sources," so YMMV) with preventing the 2004 British multiple-pub bombing plot. It's #4 on the linked list.

Some of the others on that list are also "likely suspects" for the NSA intercepts, but haven't been claimed.

Posted by: Tully at January 3, 2006 06:32 PM

NRA intercepts? Now, that WOULD be scary! Happy fingers are lysdexic ones....

Posted by: Tully at January 3, 2006 06:35 PM

Take your stinking paws off of my satellite intercepts, you damned dirty ape!

Or is it...

You can take my satellite intercepts... when you pry them from my cold dead hands!

Posted by: PatHMV at January 3, 2006 07:49 PM

Marc,

There's little doubt in my mind that the President truly believed the advisors who told him that we would be welcomed by cheering Iraqis waving American flags, and that perhaps an insurgency might later develop, but that it would be limited in scope and duration. Given how many respected senior intelligence and special forces officers were positing that claim, and given the perceived lack of resistance in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia, it was a persuasive argument at the time. In a sense, he may have been blinded by past glories and overreached, much the way JFK approved the CIA's Bay of Pigs blunder because they razzle-dazzled him with their successful overthrows of Iran's Mossadeq in 1953 and Guatemala's Arbenz in 1954.

But regardless, any doubts he may have had were probably tempered with the reality that we had to do something dramatic in order to influence the behavior of the Middle Eastern and South Asian regimes. Friedman argues that it was "not a good option, but the best available." And, again, I've yet to encounter a critic of the War who can effectively argue on what their alternative course of action would have been to influence those regimes.

Oberon,

Iraq was not one of the major supporters of jihadist terrorism -- way behind Afghnistan, Iran, Sauda Arabia wahhabists, etc. To make the "Central Front" a place where we have so many disadvantages does not make a lot of sense.

Well, definitely, there were more deserving candidates to have served as our demonstration-- regimes that were more active supporters of terrorist organizations (although Saddam was one of those, contrary to what some are trying to claim). Allegedly, the problem was that the Administration didn't believe they could get support for a war against, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia on the grounds that they were actively supporting terrorists who were trying and had already succeeded in killing Americans. Given how many people still believe the struggle against the jihadists is largely an "intelligence and law enforcement" one (witness Carla), would there really have been Congressional support for a war on those grounds? Possibly. But when there sat Saddam Hussein, isolated, weakened, defying UN resolutions and sanctions, possibly attempting to build weapons of mass destruction (and having a history of using them), and-- oh, by the way-- there were numerous Americans who were going around saying "we should have taken him out in 1991," Friedman argues that Iraq was just too attractive a candidate.

Then, too, Iraq is strategically located in the center of the region, so that American troops would be conveniently postured on the borders of the most egregious offenders as a not too subtle reminder/warning of American power.

You realize that the government must now be listening to your phone calls and reading your e-mail, yes?

Given the nature of my assignments and the projects I have worked on, and the fact that I am currently overseas, if the government weren't at least occasionally monitoring my phone calls and email, I would be stunned by their complacency!

Posted by: Bobby at January 3, 2006 08:05 PM

Bobby, thanks as always for your informed opinions on this subject.

To your analysis I would simply also add that a variety of factors would make the other more-terror supportive nations poor candidates for invasion.

Invading Saudi Arabia, for example, would cause a huge anti-American backlash because that's where Mecca is. We just cannot invade Saudi Arabia under any scenario short of the nation itself actually using WMD against us.

Invading Syria would put us in charge of highly-volatile borders with Israel (both Syria's own and Lebanon's). Every single action we took would be viewed as providing direct assistance to Israel. It was hard enough helping pick the interim Iraqis leaders. Imagine how impossible it would be if the leaders we were installing had to deal with issues affecting the Arab world's borders with Israel.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 3, 2006 08:38 PM

Bobby: You make the chose of Iraq, as a country to demonstrate our resolve, sound like the Domino Theory and Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

I think in the end, the reason we went to war Iraq depended on the character of president and his inner circle. The true nature of that character will probably never be know for decades, if at all.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 3, 2006 08:54 PM

Pat,

And that's really why George Friedman called it "not a good option, but the best available." Once the President realized that he needed to influence the regimes and that a show of force was the only way he was going to be able to change their behavior, Iraq really becomes the only viable option even if they deserve it less than some of the others.

Bob Young,

Agreed that we will probably never really know what was going on in the decision-makers minds. There are no less that five historiographic schools, for example, that explain why Eisenhower chose to support the French position in Indochina, and I would be surprised if future generations of historians reach any greater consensus on the War in Iraq. That, however, does not mean that I don't personally find George Friedman's Hypothesis to be the most persuasive.

As for the Domino Theory, I suppose that there are some parallels there-- just as there are parallels to Theodore Roosevelt's use of the Great White Fleet as a demonstration to influence Japanese expansionary ambitions, or Thomas Jefferson's decision to use the Marines to destroy Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Triploi, in order to influence the other Barbary pirates from interfering with American shipping in the Mediterranean Sea. It's a long and time honored principle of grand strategy, although its overall success still requires operational and tactical success.

Posted by: Bobby at January 3, 2006 09:20 PM

“still requires operational and tactical success.”
That's a nice way of saying “If you win your a genius, if you loose your a smuck.”

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 3, 2006 09:32 PM

More like, if you win, your enemies get scared and don't mess with you, but if you lose, they sense weakness and attack you even more.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 3, 2006 09:51 PM

That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be to note that a football coach can call the "right" play (say, a dive on 3rd-and-1 when the defense is in a Dime configuration) and still be ultimately unsuccessful if they get no yardage because the players don't execute it successfully (say, the quarterback fumbles the handoff).

Posted by: Bobby at January 3, 2006 09:54 PM

Frankly, I find it a little disconcerting that people are justifying an invasion of a sovereign nation--granted, one with an odious regime--on the basis that we needed to show our toughness to the rest of the region. If, as Bobby argues, this was the real reason for the invasion, isn't anyone bothered by the obvious violation of international law that this implies? Or the fact that some thousands of Iraqi civilians died as a result of the invasion? I'm not naive about how the world works, but, if this analysis is true, it seems pretty amoral at best. Sure, you can argue that the Iraqi people are better off--although that might be a debatable issue--but if you accept this analysis, it wouldn't matter whether they were better off or not, and it wouldn't matter whether Iraq was really a threat to the US.

It seems to me that the supporters of the war are so quick to condemn anti-war critics of being naive or complacent that they are unwilling to even acknowledge the, at least, moral ambiguities involved in starting a war for purely demonstrative purposes--if that's what happened. And just saying that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and deserved what happened to him doesn't really address the issue. I accept that the world is a tough place and that we have and must do things at times that are not particularly savory. But starting a war seems to go beyond the pale. This smacks of the ends justifies the means kind of reasoning and of the kind of amoral realpolitik that Kissinger gets criticized for.

Where does it end? Does international law mean nothing at all?

Posted by: Marc at January 4, 2006 09:26 AM

Marc,

You're right, it is amoral-- perhaps extremely so. And while it's probably not fair to say that the ultimate fate of the Iraqi people was irrelevant to the Administration (the neocons, for example, have a fundamental belief in democratic peace theory and as a second order effect, they believe that democratization will transform the dynamics of the Middle East subsystem), invading Iraq in order to influence other regimes' behaviors would be at once Realist and amoral.

But, then again, so is international law and custom that recognizes Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime (or any dictatorial regime, for that matter) as being deserving of the title of "sovereign" state. I mean, think about it: international law says that an Idi Amin in Uganda or a P.W. Botha in South Africa-- regimes that represent a mere fraction of the people that they rule over-- are "sovereign" states. Shouldn't morality require that we ask, sovereign for who? Sovereign for the tiny minority that dictates the terms for the majority, who have absolutely no say in how business is conducted-- and that's okay by international law? That a dictatorial regime (like, say, Agosto Pinochet) can be accorded the same international status as one that rules with the consent of the governed (like, say, Lazaro Cardenas) doesn't seem very moral to me.

In fact, if that isn't amoral, then I really don't know what is.

Posted by: Bobby at January 4, 2006 10:06 AM

Bobby, if I haven't said it before, thanks for confirming my suspicions. I've long said that I thought invading AFGHANISTAN wouldn't convince anyone of a policy shift towrads increased resolve.

Which meant that we had to pick some other state from a list of deserving candidates. Choosing the state HAD to involve a host of criteria. We couldn't just pick on the basis of bellicosity or terrorist complicity. The strategic importance had to be considered, as you note. Not to mention tactical concerns. And as I've also pointed out before, public support HAD to be considered, unless one wants to maintain that success is not an important consideration. On this count, Iraq was the girl with the curl, as well as being deserving.

I find so many of the "why didn't we attack X or Y instead" arguments both simplistic and audacious in their willingness to overlook the sorts of considerations that must be taken. We live in a real world when it comes to politics and national security, and that means, in an analogy that most can understand, that if you are upstairs and want your coat from the hall closet, you need to go downstairs and travel down the hall to get your coat. Maybe there are 3 staircases, but if you want your coat today, you have to pick one.

I agree with you that in retrospect it's surely regrettable that the Iraq war was likely marketed most strongly on the basis of the points that the admin felt US citizens would respond most strongly to instead of the ones which it privately viewed as most relevant.

Posted by: bk at January 4, 2006 10:22 AM

Just to be picky, I'd point out that we were already in active military conflict with Iraq at the time, and had been for a decade. They were shooting at us, we were shooting at them. Low-grade, perhaps, but very real. The UN/US containment was collapsing politically, and once uncontained Saddam was not going to just sit around on his ass enjoying his dotage. Yes, context counts. We ignore realism for principles at a cost.

I've parsed my way through the casualty figures in Iraq, and there's no doubt at all that the invasion has resulted in an approximately 80% annualized reduction in civilian deaths in Iraq, as compared to the Saddam regime. That's including ALL the known insurgent and jihadi casualties as "civilians." The war may have resulted in thousands of deaths, but it's also prevented many more thousands of deaths, mostly of innocents. If we're going to lament the lost (many of whom were enemy combatants) we should also recognize the saved, or it's a pretty damn one-sided calculus to be playing moral equivalencies with. Those mass graves aren't full of mirages.

Does international law mean nothing at all?

To whom, and under what circumstances? International "law" is little more than expedient agreements between nations. Nations don't have friends, nations have interests. What do you do with nations that don't abide by international law? When the "sheriff" won't leave the courthouse and his tax-paid bottle and comfy chair to enforce those laws?

Law without enforcement is no law at all. When the enforcement mechanisms of "international law" are corrupt or non-existent, what are the options?

Posted by: Tully at January 4, 2006 10:56 AM

BK,

There are two compelling reasons I get for why the Administration chose to publicly stress the other issues (WMD, Al Qaeda connections) instead of their real motivation. The firstis simply that if you go to war to demonstrate your resolve and put other regimes on notice to influence their behavior, that objective would be undermined if you publicly stated it (imagine: lining up in goal-line to throw a play action bomb to your receiver has the potential to stun the defense... but not if you tell the other team that's why you're lining up in goal-line in the first place, right?). Such a discourse would have had to occur behind closed doors to be most effective.

The second is that they believed it would simply be too difficult to get political cover for such an amoral (but nonetheless urgent) reason, and that in any case it was more or less irrelevant because they were convinced the invasion would uncover evidence of weapons of mass destruction, albeit after the fact. Although the evidence they had to support it was by no means beyond a reasonable doubt (obviously), they still believed that Saddam had WMDs and that's why they were willing to use it as their main publicly-stated reason for war-- after the war, they figured they would show off the WMDs they had discovered, along with mass graves and evidence of his corruption of UN sanctions (which they did actually find), and any criticism of the war would more or less evaporate. But when the WMDs didn't turn up, they were stuck with a publicly-stated main rationale that didn't seem to make sense (although in fairness the Administration had always included several other reasons-- from Saddam's support for terrorism to his defiance of UN resolutions).

Unfortunately, their assumptions did not hold and now critics of the War can charge that it was based on false pretenses without having to acknowledge the other reality-- that without OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, we would be much less safer today. They can also say they would work with other countries to reduce their support for terrorist training, financing, recruiting, et. al., without actually having to figure out how they would go about influencing those states to do something so completely against their own interests. I've yet to receive a credible reason from any critic on how they would devise such a policy.

Posted by: Bobby at January 4, 2006 11:14 AM

Marc,

Even if you accept sovereignty as a legitimate reason to eschew invasion (I'm agnostic), surely you acknowledge that not all sovereignty is equal. With Iraq, we had a recent history of unresolved and ongoing conflict with a recalcitrant despotic regime. Surely even if one classes Iraq as sovereign, one can still also recognize that such sovereignty simply cannot amount to a guarantee of no real substantive repercussions (beyond sanctions and inspections) so long as the UN fails to reach unanimity. This amounts to accepting that all a despot needs is one ally on the security counsel to keep doing whatever he wants. Count me out.

IMO, international law is what it is, something that can have some affect when there's broad agreement, and also something that's likely to be ignored when its #1 and #2 products are stalemate and the lucrative corruption that such entrenchment inevitably fosters.

Bobby,

Those are more good points. All I want to add is that even more so with the benefit of hindsight I think we should have tried harder to be more sure. Back then I remember thinking it all sounded thin, and that if we were wrong it'd look deservedly bad. I'm a harder grader than those more willing to dismiss this as a mulligan because others were also way off and because we may have done some good for Iraq.

And tactical concerns aside, I believe that waiting a while longer was politically feasible and even desirable, something made more compelling a thought given that there apparently were no serious Iraq WMD, something we might have been able to discern without an invasion. See, my gut told me that at the tiome when we massed troops and Bush went to the UN, he was at best shopping for a rubber stamp. It never struck me that Bush approached the UN in an honest effort to arrive at an approach. He was determined that we would invade along with whoever chose to join us unless by some miracle SH abdicated.

Posted by: bk at January 4, 2006 01:34 PM

To reinforce Bobby's point, remember that our history of responding to terrorism was "proportional responses". They attack the USS Cole, we blow up an empty training camp or two. They try to blow up the World Trade Center (in 1993), we arrest a few people and throw them in jail. To people demonstrably willing to die in order to damage us, that has little deterrent effect. More to the point, it leads them to believe that America will never respond forcefully to protect its interests, will never fight back, because we lack the will to do so, to stomach the terrible consequences of any war, just or not.

And so they continued to attack us. And every time they successfully attacked us, without sustaining that much damage themselves, they appeared stronger and gained more adherents who wanted to pile on in their crusade against the Great Satan.

Saddam invaded Kuwait and stayed in Kuwait because he did not really believe that the U.S. and the rest of the world would risk our soldiers to throw him out. He balked at the U.N. inspectors and kept shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone because he didn't think the U.S. would actually invade him. The insurgents believe that if they can just drag this out long enough, they will win, that Americans don't have the stomach for the long fight.

By standing up strong (as President Reagan did before he began negotiating arms agreements with the Soviets), we can deter future attacks. By doing little and appearing weak and willing to be hit, we almost guarantee future attacks.

Brian, as for your point about the U.N., it is only fair to mention that France and Germany made it clear they would NEVER approve any military action against Saddam, no matter what. It wasn't that they felt they should have been wooed more, or that President Bush should have listened more to alternative timetables. They were NOT going to agree, no matter what. So it really doesn't matter much what attitude the President took to the U.N.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 4, 2006 02:07 PM

Speculation about motives and benefits is always fun.

But I feel compelled to reinforce that the majority of the country did not base its support on these alternate arguments. Nor can we infer from Syria's, Iran's and North Korea's actions that they currently feel all that threatened by our display of resolve.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 4, 2006 03:07 PM

Brian, as for your point about the U.N., it is only fair to mention that France and Germany made it clear they would NEVER approve any military action against Saddam, no matter what. It wasn't that they felt they should have been wooed more, or that President Bush should have listened more to alternative timetables. They were NOT going to agree, no matter what. So it really doesn't matter much what attitude the President took to the U.N.

Pat, my sense that we might have benefitted from waiting longer isn't really based on the notion that given time, we could have persuaded France and Germany to go along. As an aside though, are you certain that both France's and Germany's insistence against invasion was declared BEFORE any of the UN negotiating involving GW began? That's not my recollection, but rather that these positions emerged in response to GWB's insistence. I could be wrong though.

Anyway, my feeling that we could have afforded another, say, 6 to 12 months (leaving aside tactical considerations which, as you know, we helped create by massing the troops in the first place) is primarily based, first of all, on my feelings of substantial doubt about the nature and potential of the threat Iraq represented.

What I'd like to have seen us pursue was a strategy that took advantage of other nations reluctance for invasion by beating Hussein at his game of agreeing to certain concessions, and then balking and changing terms when the time came. France, Germany and others viewed preventing an invasion as potentially a feather in their anti-violence caps. And SH needed the UN far more than it needed him.

warning; what follows is me talking out my butt. Bobby and perhaps others should comment on how unrealistic this scenario might have been.
So we should have agreed to certain types of inspections and certain numbers of inspectors, and then showed up with more and different people, and forced the UN to go along, slowly building up both weapons intelligence and some presence while always raising the bar of conditions for avoiding our invasion, while we really used to UN to help us invade bit by bit. At this point, if SH didn't get the message that we were phasing him out, then we could invade. [end rectal emission]

Now I hope Bobby and others can tell me where I'm way off above. Mostly, what I'm trying to express is that prior to invasion, the lion's share of the physical power and also the moral capital was all on our side, which is why I was opposed acting in such a hurry as Bush seemed to be. If you ask me, the current state of affairs both in regard to Iraq itself and also min regard to our relationships with other western nations could have been foreseen as soon as the tanks first rolled. Roses in tank barrels and enduringly adoring Iraqi crowds were never more than some wingjob's masturbatory fantasy.

I felt Bush misplayed our hand and could have gotten more money into the pot. But that's pure speculation, and I stress that I absolutely do not think that the actions taken by Bush in this instance were indefensible, only suboptimal. If it were a game of dogs playing poker, Bush started wagging his tail when the first hand was dealt. He's not a diplomat, and he has no poker face. Of course, it's possible that this was never purely enough a game of poker. In this case I absolutely grant that a strong argument can be made for expedience, even if it's not the route I'd have opted for.

Posted by: bk at January 4, 2006 03:08 PM

Brian, the changing the terms of the deal after it is made (number of inspectors, etc.) only works for the bad guys, the guys who don't care about world opinion or the sanctity of the U.N. The first time WE tried something like that, France, Germany, and much of the rest of the U.N. would say that we were violating the terms of the inspection deal, and shame on us. And they are U.N. inspectors, so we could hardly just "show up" with more and different personnel. Only UNSCOM could do something like that... and the U.N. is just structurally unable to do anything that RealPolitik.

And many people forget how close the sanctions regime was to crumbling. The costs on innocent Iraqis was high, and the U.N. (largely because of corruption, as is now being proven) allowed Saddam to use the sanctions to further strengthen his wealth and control over Iraq. Despite that fact, however, the bulk of world opinion was turning against the sanctions because of exaggerated stories of children starving and dying without medicine, etc. The sanctions were on their last legs. The situation at that time was very unstable; time was not on the side of anyone desiring to take action against Saddam.

And frankly, given the French involvement in helping Saddam evade the sanctions, I care very little about their opinion.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 4, 2006 03:33 PM

Rick:

You say,My sense is that as President Bush has made Iraq the "central front" in the War on Terror, many liberals have come to belittle the entire war on terror. Yes, most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan. But that was four years ago. What have they been doing lately?

The left in general is alarmed by the way Bush has made going after terrorism as a "war" and placing Iraq at the front of it. This is the case for a laundry list of reasons which I've mentioned before but could outline again if you like. Essentially, many leftists strongly believe that Bush is encouraging terrorism with his policies rather than ending it.

They have been more focused on civil liberties than national security. That's true, at least, of the loudest liberals. Perhaps it's related to the way the media likes to frame conflict, but I see it on blogs as well which are not filtered by the media.

The focus on civil liberties is an offshoot, in my view, on the effects of terrorism. If we allow terrorism to undermine the very fabric that our nation is built upon, then terrorism has triumphed. I think that's part and parcel of the general alarm many on the left have in regard to Bush's policies on terrorism, in general.

To address Bobby's point on the undermining of jihadists/terrorists in nations like Saudi Arabia, I agree that there are massive obstacles to overcome. Many of these nations have placated the Mullahs and other fundamentalist religious leaders for decades in order to hold on to power. But our attempts at "war" only address the symptoms.

We must have a comprehensive plan to undermine these roots of terrorism. We need to be asking the questions about why these madrasses create so many jihadists...but even further why do so many engineering, medical and modern science schools producing them as well? (Ayman al-Zawahiri's ideology was formed while attending medical school in Egypt, for example)

Until we start taking a hard look at these issues as a society (Here..because they threaten us. There..because that's mostly where they're getting the ideology) and continue to treat this as something in which we can end with a "war", it's going to continue and likely escalate.

Posted by: carla at January 4, 2006 03:40 PM

The French and the Russians were up to their ears in sanctions-evading deals with Saddam, and in the Oil-For-Food bribery schemes, and both kept cutting out new contracts right up until the invasion--including a French contract to exploit two major oil fields, a contract estimated as being worth about $30 billion net. Both nations also held considerable Iraqi debt, issued to pay for armaments purchased by Saddam--debt that was unlikely to be paid if he was ousted (and that has indeed mostly been either repudiated or forgiven).

No, the French and the Russians were not going to agree to an invasion, no matter what. They were profiting handsomely from the status quo, and stood to gain enormously if Saddam stayed in power. Gerhard Schroeder, on the other hand, didn't manage to grab much at all for the Germans, and must have felt really left out when the money trails came to light and he realized that Chirac had used him. Like Charlie Brown, he got the rock. And maybe a stupid T-shirt.

Posted by: Tully at January 4, 2006 04:29 PM

The French and the Russians were up to their ears in sanctions-evading deals with Saddam, and in the Oil-For-Food bribery schemes, and both kept cutting out new contracts right up until the invasion--including a French contract to exploit two major oil fields, a contract estimated as being worth about $30 billion net. Both nations also held considerable Iraqi debt, issued to pay for armaments purchased by Saddam--debt that was unlikely to be paid if he was ousted (and that has indeed mostly been either repudiated or forgiven).

US companies were doing sanctions-busting for the Oil for Food program with the full knowledge of the Bush Administration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food_program#US_and_UK_complicity

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/14/oilfood.indictment/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/18/oil.for.food/

That's not to say that the European nations Tully cited aren't at fault. But it seems weird to me to say that the reason they didn't want the US to invade is because of Oil For Food. We were up to our armpits in Oil For Food too, and we are the invaders.

Posted by: carla at January 4, 2006 08:00 PM

Not all oil for food, Carla, or even primarily. OFF was the tool for direct bribery, but for national-interest bribery there were more potent tools. Billions and billions in debt that would be lost if Saddam were deposed, and greater billions in contracts with Saddam that would also be lost.

Under OFF, France was Iraq's largest trading partner, controlling about 25% of all imports. And from previous business, Iraq owed France over $6 billion for arms sales.

Total Fina Elf negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq's Nahr Umar field, and development rights to the Majnoon field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's reserves. The Majnoon field alone is estimated at 30 billion barrels of oil, a potential gross return of over a TRILLION dollars at current prices, and a likely net for Total Fina in the $150 billion range. That's one helluva lot of incentive to play ball.

Russia was almost on par with France for OFF imports, and was owed about $8 billion from arms sales. Russia was holding a $40 billion development agreement that included additional commissions on the oil reserves to be developed. Best estimate of that contract was over $50 billion in commissions for the lifetime of the coverage.

Germany got snookered. They had some considerable trade going with Iraq, but nothing within an order of magnitude or two of the French and Russian deals.

As I said, the idea that France and Russia would voluntarily throw away those contracts and debts to support the invasion is a bit naive.

Posted by: Tully at January 4, 2006 08:29 PM

Note: the Total Fina net estimate I first cited was based on $25/barrel oil, the larger estimate is for current prices. The profitability increases faster than the price, because the fixed costs are covered.

Posted by: Tully at January 4, 2006 08:32 PM

BK,

There's several reasons why the Administration might have been in such a rush to go to War in Iraq (although, interestingly enough, Gen. Wayne Downing actually resigned from his position as SOCOM commander when he was not allowed to use an OEF-model style invasion in 2002, so from their perspective it might have seemed not like a rush, but a compromise-- but that's a subject for a different thread).

The first is that given the events of 2002-- especially the state of Pakistani nuclear weapons programs before American operatives secured them-- there was probably an undue sense of urgency surrounding their plans and they were convinced that they had to do something quickly before the next 9/11 occurred.

The second is that if it really was about demonstrating American resolve to terrorist supporting regimes, then employing a safe United Nations-approved strategy might have been almost counterproductive to the effect that they wanted to achieve-- i.e., rather than demonstrate a willingness to use unilateral action to knock down any regime that isn't "with us," such a strategy might have actually demonstrated that we don't have the guts to pull the trigger unless every other house on the street agrees to our actions. Moreover, since President Clinton rightly bypassed the UN in Kosovo, President Bush probably felt he had no need to adhere to the same organization himself.

But thirdly, and perhaps most relevant, the Bush Administration was well aware that the European states had very little military force to offer the Coalition of the Willing. Because they have neglected their militaries for so long, the Europeans are now in a position where they can't contribute to expeditionary deployments abroad-- those that do have something to offer are either already onboard (UK and East/Central Europe) or strategically overdeployed themselves (France)-- that's why, two years after NATO agreed to take over responsibility for Afghanistan, they still can't muster more then 8,000 troops on the ground. The Administratin likely took stock of this situation and decided that since the European states had nothing to offer, we shouldn't let their weakness have veto power over our military action.

Whether or not this was a good idea is subject to interpretation, but the ultimate reality is that if you're waiting to see a multinational style military operation (a la Desert Storm I), you'll be waiting a long time, because the Europeans don't have much to contribute anymore. That was always sort of the inside joke about Senator Kerry's "we'll bring in NATO!" "plan"-- those of us who have worked with European militaries knew quite well it couldn't be done even if they had the political will to do it.

Posted by: Bobby at January 4, 2006 09:42 PM

Bob Young,

But I feel compelled to reinforce that the majority of the country did not base its support on these alternate arguments. Nor can we infer from Syria's, Iran's and North Korea's actions that they currently feel all that threatened by our display of resolve.

I agree completely that OIF wasn't marketed on the reasons for which it was actually executed; that's sort of the sub-text of what Brian and I have been discussing. Whether or not it could have been marketed is a different story. I suspect the Administration felt it couldn't (or it would have just been too difficult) and chose the causes that we instead saw manifested in the Congressional resolution.

As for Syria, Iran, and North Korea, those are actually a little more intricate than just a broad-brush "it obviously didn;t work" statement. Initially, Syria and Iran did demonstrate some signs that they were acquiescing to American power and backing off their support for terror in 2003 (George Friedman's Stratfor.com actually has a great essay tracking this). But as 2004 wore on and it became readily apparent that the US was challenged with subduing the Iraqi insurgency, they were emboldened to once again to revert back to their ways. That's one of the reasons I've been so frustrated with the military's inability to adopt an effects-based doctrine that would enable us to defeat a counterinsurgency.

North Korea, on the other hand, saw Saddam fall and actively increased their nuclear weapons program, seeing it as critical to "not going out" the same way. But OIF probably was never designed to influence Kim Jong Il so much as it was targeted at the Assads, Musharrafs, Qaddafism and Crown Prince Abdullahs.

Posted by: Bobby at January 4, 2006 09:55 PM

Carla,

But our attempts at "war" only address the symptoms. . . .

We must have a comprehensive plan to undermine these roots of terrorism. . . .

Until we start taking a hard look at these issues as a society (Here..because they threaten us. There..because that's mostly where they're getting the ideology) and continue to treat this as something in which we can end with a "war", it's going to continue and likely escalate.

Again, I think you're falling into a general misconception of critics by believing that a counterterror strategy should focus on "neutralizing the current terrorist threat" or "defeating the roots of terrorism" as an either-or choice. That's simply not the case. Both must be address simultaneously. Critics love arguing that we need to address the "root" causes of terrorism-- and indeed we do and are-- but that doesn't mean we can afford to ignore the equally important mission to neutralize the current terrorist capability. The latter may just be a symptom, but my rudimentary training in emergency medicine taught me that you have to first stabilize the patient before operating on him-- otherwise, he bleeds out, goes into shock, and dies while you're addressing the "root" cause of his problem. Similarly, if you're addressing only the "root" causes of terror, some terrorist organization goes out and detonates a nuclear weapon in London, and you're left in a far worse position than you were before. Both the "root" causes and the neutralization of its current capabilities must be addressed if we are to defeat the jihadists.

But relying solely on "root" causes is a smokescreen for failure.

Also, minor point, but:

Ayman al-Zawahiri's ideology was formed while attending medical school in Egypt, for example)

I recommend you re-check your facts on AZ. Unless your accounts are more accurate than mine (and I'm pretty sure they're not), al-Zawahiri reportedly joined Egypt's radical Muslim Brotherhood when he was a young teenager (somewhere between thirteen and sixteen). This doesn't necessarily mean your larger point is wrong-- in fact I think we do need to understand what's going on at the universities-- but your example of al-Zawahiri is completely wrong.

Posted by: Bobby at January 4, 2006 10:16 PM

Again, I think you're falling into a general misconception of critics by believing that a counterterror strategy should focus on "neutralizing the current terrorist threat" or "defeating the roots of terrorism" as an either-or choice. That's simply not the case. Both must be address simultaneously. Critics love arguing that we need to address the "root" causes of terrorism-- and indeed we do and are-- but that doesn't mean we can afford to ignore the equally important mission to neutralize the current terrorist capability.

You're assuming (wrongly) that because I've advocated for going hard after the root cause (which I don't see us doing) that I don't also advocate for neutralizing the current group. I believe both must be done. But quite honestly, I don't believe we're doing either especially effectively.

I recommend you re-check your facts on AZ. Unless your accounts are more accurate than mine (and I'm pretty sure they're not), al-Zawahiri reportedly joined Egypt's radical Muslim Brotherhood when he was a young teenager (somewhere between thirteen and sixteen). This doesn't necessarily mean your larger point is wrong-- in fact I think we do need to understand what's going on at the universities-- but your example of al-Zawahiri is completely wrong.

My information on Ayman al-Zawahiri came from John Voll, Professor of Islamic History and Director, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University:

And the heir to Sayyid Qutb is Shukri Mustafa, or Abd al-Salam Faraj, who wrote The Forgotten Duty, which is the standard Islamic monograph on jihad, and again, you look at that – you look at The Forgotten Duty of Faraj – and that has virtually no modern Wahhabi content. It has essentially an Egyptian violent jihad ideological content. And you look at Ayman al-Zawahiri whose ideology was not formulated in some conservative Wahhabi madrassa, it was formulated in modern schools of science that he got as he was educated as a doctor in Egypt.

Posted by: carla at January 5, 2006 11:11 AM

Ayman al-Zawahiri joined the Muslim Brotherhood by age 14, and was briefly a student of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb's execution in late 1966, followed by the Six Day War in June 1967, were probably the key events that pushed Zawahiri completely into the violent-radical tent, though no one's really sure. Both events happened in fairly close proximity when al-Zawahiri was about 16, just before he entered medical school at Cairo University in the fall of 1967.

By 1979 he had become a leader and recruiter for Islamic Jihad. Not much on him between Cairo U and then.

Posted by: Tully at January 5, 2006 01:07 PM

Voll simply looks to be wrong there. Some more: In Cairo Zawahiri hung out with Muhammed Qutb (Sayyid's brother) and Qutb follower Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, the "Godfather of Jihad" who inspired OBL. He also joined a Salafi (Wahhabi) group.

Shukri Mustafa's book may still be a force, but Mustafa himself was a nutball apocalyptic cult leader, a regular Islamic David Koresh. He thought he was the Mahdi and set up communes of followers, but didn't have a long career at it. He was captured and executed in 1978 after his group kidnapped and killed a mainstream cleric.

Posted by: Tully at January 5, 2006 01:27 PM

Tully...could you provide source links, please?

Posted by: carla at January 5, 2006 07:48 PM

here

here

here

here

here

here

here

That's a start. Google the names and you'll find plenty. For example, M. Qutb was a professor of Islamic Studies in Saudi Arabia later on, and Sayyad Qutb was purportedly a Freemason at some point. (I throw in that last for the conspiracy fiends.) Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and M. Qutb were both graduate students in Islamic Studies at Cairo U. while Zawahiri was studying psychology and pharmacology, and the Salafi group that Zawahiri joined was Qutb's. OBL met Azzam in the 70's in Saudi Arabia, when he was astudying at the same university that Azzam was teaching at. And OBL was one of the suspects in Azzam's 1989 assassination, still unsolved.

This is not a terribly rational and sober crew, but the network is incredibly incestuous. Voss can say that Zawahiri was in studies of a somewhat scientific nature in Cairo, but his philosophies and radicalism seems to pre-date that, and have been hardened during his time with M. Qutb and Azzam. And Voss can say that Shukri Mustafa was S. Qutb's "heir," but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Mustafa was clearly heavily influenced by Qutb, but his impact came after Qutb's death, and Qutb's followers appear to have mostly followed M. Qutb, not the much odder and leader-centered cult of Shukri Mustafa.

Posted by: Tully at January 5, 2006 09:47 PM

Carla,

You're assuming (wrongly) that because I've advocated for going hard after the root cause (which I don't see us doing) that I don't also advocate for neutralizing the current group. I believe both must be done. But quite honestly, I don't believe we're doing either especially effectively.

Well, in the first place, the Administration does believe they're addressing the root causes: their belief is that jihadism is being fueled by a sense of despondency among the residents of the Middle East created by their frustration with a lack of power over their own affairs. Their answer then, in part, is to support the democratization of the repressive, illiberal Arab states in an effort to build a new regional dynamic in which the average Arab citizen feels that he actually has a stake in the system. Economic development and education intiatives are among the tools we use to support their democratization. The New Republic's Spencer Ackerman implictly endorsed this same dynamic when he noted that American Muslims don't revolt a la European ones because of the freedoms and sense of enfranchisement in this country.

It is noteworthy, however, that for all their talk of addressing the root causes (including a high profile conference last year), neither France nor Germany nor anyone else have recommended any alternatives to address what they see as the root causes. They don't support income redistribution plans to alleviate their poverty or anything of that sort. The US is alone in addressing the root causes at all, even if it might not be doing enough.

But since you're also a supporter of neutralizing the current terrorist threat, and you've previously stated that you think the right approach is to eschew military force and utilize law enforcement and intelligence to work with other governments to end their support (financial, recruiting, training, etc.) to terrorist organizations, I'd really like to know precisely how you would have gone about influencing, say, a Qadaffi or a Crown Prince Abdullah into doing something completely against their interests... So what's your recommendation on how to do things more efficiently?

Posted by: Bobby at January 5, 2006 10:40 PM

Oh, c'mon Bobby, we just have to work with our friends harder and be nice.

Posted by: bk at January 6, 2006 09:37 AM

It is noteworthy, however, that for all their talk of addressing the root causes (including a high profile conference last year), neither France nor Germany nor anyone else have recommended any alternatives to address what they see as the root causes. They don't support income redistribution plans to alleviate their poverty or anything of that sort.

France and Germany haven't even been addressing the "root causes" among Muslim immigrants (and later generations) in their own nations. Thus the riots late last year. Why should we expect they'd do anything right addressing the "root causes" elsewhere? If they don't go to full-court press fairly soon in handling their own domestic "cultural assimilation" problems, they're in serious trouble in the coming decades.

Maybe they should read Steyn's most recent column. If you strip out the 80% that's straight polemic, he has some insightful things to say about Europe's situation--and ours. (And as I've been saying some of the very same things as regards America and Hispanic immigration for years now, it naturally resonates with me.) In short, as Steyn puts it, "It's the demography, stupid!"

Roger Kimball's article, After the Suicide of the West", in the January issue of THE NEW CRITERION (where Steyn's article also appears) echoes the thought from different angles. Sorry, Kimball's behind the NC subscription wall.

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 10:31 AM