Friday, April 02, 2004
The Wrong War, The Wrong Strategy
In what is a first for this blog I am linking to an article by The Cato Institute. Titled, "Iraq:The Wrong War", the interesting thing about it is how much it echoes the opinions of Richard Clarke and many so-called liberals who argue that our invasion of Iraq has diverted resources, personnel, and focus from the people who are really a threat to our nation, al Qaeda. Cato has always been the thinking-man's conservative think tank--in contrast to the American Enterprise Institute, which has shamelessly shilled and promoted any pro-GOP, pro-corporate idea that floated out of the TeamBush camp.
As has been noted here before the primary foreign policy plank of TeamBush's re-election is that the War against Terrorism 1.) includes Iraq and; 2.) must be waged as a overt military engagement rather than an international law enforcement and diplomacy effort.
In fact, TeamBush has been quite successful at framing the debate in this way. Successful framing, however, does not mean that it's a good policy or even one that is ultimately likely to succeed.
Contrary to the now-canonized platitude that 'September 11 changed everything', the administration has continued to play from the same game plan that it was using on September 10. We now know that the aborted speech by Condoleeza Rice on that fateful day, a major foreign policy statement, spoke of a need for a vigorous missile defense program against large state actors that were perceived as threats. The now famous axis-of-evil got much of the attention in this policy address while terror groups were mentioned only as patrons of states that sponsor them to do the state's bidding.
Of course, this is just outmoded Cold War thinking, and at least among many experts, it was prior to the 9-11 tragedy as well. Yet if you listen closely to Perle, Rice et al this is still their worldview.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek wrote a fine synopsis comparing these two views of terrorism. He concluded that the TeamBush approach was indeed not the best option. Zakaria noted that:
"The Bush administration came to office with different concerns. During the 1990s conservative intellectuals and policy wonks sounded the alarm about China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, but not about terror. Real men dealt with states.
Even after 9/11, many in the administration wanted to focus on states. Bush spoke out against countries that "harbor" terrorists. Two days after the attacks, Paul Wolfowitz proposed "ending states that sponsor terrorism." Beyond Iraq, conservative intellectuals like Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen insist that the real source of terror remains the "terror masters," meaning states like Iran and Syria.
I asked an American official closely involved with counterterrorism about state sponsorship. He replied, "Well, all that's left is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, and it's mostly directed against Israel. States have been getting out of the terror business since the late 1980s. We have kept many governments on the list of state sponsors for political reasons. The reality is that the terror we face is mostly unconnected to states." Today's terrorists are harbored in countries like Spain and Germany—entirely unintentionally. They draw on support not from states but private individuals—Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers.
Afghanistan housed Al Qaeda, and thus it was crucial to attack the country. But that was less a case of a state's sponsoring a terror group and more one of a terror group's sponsoring a state. Consider the situation today. Al Qaeda has lost its base in Afghanistan, two thirds of its leaders have been captured or killed, its funds are being frozen. And yet terror attacks mount from Indonesia to Casablanca to Spain. "These attacks are not being directed by Al Qaeda. They are being inspired by it," the official told me. "I'm not even sure it makes sense to speak of Al Qaeda because it conveys the image of a single, if decentralized, group. In fact, these are all different, local groups that have in common only ideology and enemies.""
His column concluded by promising a sound strategy for dealing with this new threat in his next piece. I hope the KerryTeam is paying attention, because TeamBush continues to cram its head in the sand and maintain that 'all is well'--to our nation's detriment.
In what is a first for this blog I am linking to an article by The Cato Institute. Titled, "Iraq:The Wrong War", the interesting thing about it is how much it echoes the opinions of Richard Clarke and many so-called liberals who argue that our invasion of Iraq has diverted resources, personnel, and focus from the people who are really a threat to our nation, al Qaeda. Cato has always been the thinking-man's conservative think tank--in contrast to the American Enterprise Institute, which has shamelessly shilled and promoted any pro-GOP, pro-corporate idea that floated out of the TeamBush camp.
As has been noted here before the primary foreign policy plank of TeamBush's re-election is that the War against Terrorism 1.) includes Iraq and; 2.) must be waged as a overt military engagement rather than an international law enforcement and diplomacy effort.
In fact, TeamBush has been quite successful at framing the debate in this way. Successful framing, however, does not mean that it's a good policy or even one that is ultimately likely to succeed.
Contrary to the now-canonized platitude that 'September 11 changed everything', the administration has continued to play from the same game plan that it was using on September 10. We now know that the aborted speech by Condoleeza Rice on that fateful day, a major foreign policy statement, spoke of a need for a vigorous missile defense program against large state actors that were perceived as threats. The now famous axis-of-evil got much of the attention in this policy address while terror groups were mentioned only as patrons of states that sponsor them to do the state's bidding.
Of course, this is just outmoded Cold War thinking, and at least among many experts, it was prior to the 9-11 tragedy as well. Yet if you listen closely to Perle, Rice et al this is still their worldview.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek wrote a fine synopsis comparing these two views of terrorism. He concluded that the TeamBush approach was indeed not the best option. Zakaria noted that:
"The Bush administration came to office with different concerns. During the 1990s conservative intellectuals and policy wonks sounded the alarm about China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, but not about terror. Real men dealt with states.
Even after 9/11, many in the administration wanted to focus on states. Bush spoke out against countries that "harbor" terrorists. Two days after the attacks, Paul Wolfowitz proposed "ending states that sponsor terrorism." Beyond Iraq, conservative intellectuals like Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen insist that the real source of terror remains the "terror masters," meaning states like Iran and Syria.
I asked an American official closely involved with counterterrorism about state sponsorship. He replied, "Well, all that's left is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, and it's mostly directed against Israel. States have been getting out of the terror business since the late 1980s. We have kept many governments on the list of state sponsors for political reasons. The reality is that the terror we face is mostly unconnected to states." Today's terrorists are harbored in countries like Spain and Germany—entirely unintentionally. They draw on support not from states but private individuals—Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers.
Afghanistan housed Al Qaeda, and thus it was crucial to attack the country. But that was less a case of a state's sponsoring a terror group and more one of a terror group's sponsoring a state. Consider the situation today. Al Qaeda has lost its base in Afghanistan, two thirds of its leaders have been captured or killed, its funds are being frozen. And yet terror attacks mount from Indonesia to Casablanca to Spain. "These attacks are not being directed by Al Qaeda. They are being inspired by it," the official told me. "I'm not even sure it makes sense to speak of Al Qaeda because it conveys the image of a single, if decentralized, group. In fact, these are all different, local groups that have in common only ideology and enemies.""
His column concluded by promising a sound strategy for dealing with this new threat in his next piece. I hope the KerryTeam is paying attention, because TeamBush continues to cram its head in the sand and maintain that 'all is well'--to our nation's detriment.
Comments:
Post a Comment
