Security theater

One of the more dysfunctional responses to the 9/11 attacks in 2001 has been the various form of security theater that have grown up in addition to actually necessary precautions. Some are aggravating, some are just dumb.

One of my favorites is when a guard at the security line on an international flight takes your passport, looks at it seriously and then looks at you and asks, "Your last name?" Because, you know, a dangerous terrorist on a secret mission to do terrible harm to somebody would probably forget to memorize the name on his fake passport. If he was even using a fake one.

Some forms of security theater, though, can be dangerous. Joe Eskenazi gives an example from last month in Insecurity SF Weekly 05/01/2013, involving AT&T Park in San Francisco, which started a no-packpack rule after 9/11 that doesn't apply to suitcase-sized handbags:

This kind of "security" attains the rare two-fer of being both moronic and oxymoronic. And, alas, it's not a vestige of a bygone era. On Friday, April 19, thousands of people — perhaps even tens of thousands — massed outside AT&T Park. First pitch was already in the books, but the swelling crowd on Willie Mays Plaza was more tightly packed than a ballpark-bound N-Judah and growing larger and denser by the minute. Black-and-orange-clad fans spilled into the crosswalks and across the intersections. Lines blended into other lines; listless fans slowly perambulated around the plaza in a Möbius-shaped path.

It was a maniacally frustrating moment — and not merely because the throngs had been essentially standing still, cheek-to-jowl, for the better part of an hour and were now missing the game they'd paid to see. More substantively: In reaction to an attack directed at many thousands of people packed alarmingly tightly into the streets of Boston, AT&T Park security measures resulted in many thousands of people being packed alarmingly tightly into the streets of San Francisco.

"They created a perfect crowd scene for killing the maximum amount of people," reflects Ohio State professor John Mueller, co-author of Terror, Security, and Money. "It's basically absurd." But not uncommon — or unexpected. "This is so stupid. And it happens all the time," says security expert Bruce Schneier. "It's very standard: Something must be done.

"This is Something. Therefore, we must do it."

Eskenazi did some follow-up and found that it's standard practice at AT&T Park that when the crowd starts backing up seriously, the just cut back the security checks and let people in, which they eventually did that night. And he makes the sensible observation, "A system in which thousands of people are pushed into the streets and rendered soft targets, followed by the predictable abandonment of that system after it produces a backup, can hardly be described as effective — or even much of a system."

Romesh Ratnesar addresses the issues in As in Boston, Resilience Can Help the U.S. Defeat Terrorist Attacks Bloomberg Businessweek 04/18/2103 (print title, "The New Normal"):

The decline in terrorist activity stems from multiple factors, ranging from more restrictive immigration policies to vast improvements in intelligence gathering. In some ways, the U.S.’s counterterrorism system is a victim of its success: The absence of attacks has heightened Washington’s obsession with preventing another one at any cost. The U.S. has spent at least $640 billion on homeland security measures in the years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The inescapable logic of counterterrorism is that such vast expenditures are capable of defending the country against Sept. 11-style hijackings, but they can’t do much to prevent two relatively crude devices from producing nearly 200 casualties in Boston.

The U.S. has been successful in reducing the threat of terrorism, but it has wildly overspent in a futile attempt to achieve the goal of eliminating it. "After 9/11 we put our national security apparatus on steroids and decided that we were going to try to stop another attack from ever taking place," says Stephen Flynn, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, who has advised the government on homeland security issues. "But much less investment was made to increase our society’s ability to respond to such events."

He uses the word "resilience" to refer to the ability of government to respond effectively to terrorist attacks, as in properly trained and staffed first responders and police.

The United States paid a heavy price in numerous ways by responding to the 9/11 attacks by treating it as the occasion to become more militarily aggressive and declare a Long War against Terrorism. The focus really should have been on sensible saftety measures - like not allowing actual knives on planes - rather than on the military aggression that creates new enemies and new targets. An attack on the Al Qaeda concentrations in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a necessary part of the response. But an invasion of Iraq and a decade-plus of ongoing war in Afghanistan were not.

Tags: terrorism, global war on terrorism, gwot

September 11 retrospective: Chances missed

Anatol Lieven wrote about the risks and opportunities in the American and Western response to the 9/11 attacks in Strategy for terror Prospect 10/20/2001, which he says was written "a few hours after the attacks." (A somewhat revised version of this essay was included in James Hege, Jr. and Gideon Rose, eds, How Did This Happen? (2001) that somewhat confusingly makes it sound like it was written after the October 7 start of the Afghanistan War.)

Even in retrospect, I still think this was a true statement for the immediate aftermath of 9/11: "On the assumption that the perpetrators are identified and traced to some physical space a ferocious military response will be necessary. Not to do this would be to betray the victims and display weakness." It was, as he said, "the worst terrorist attack in history and the worst attack of any kind ever directed against the American mainland."

But this observation now looks like a description of opportunities terribly squandered:

A hardline response from the US is appropriate in the short-term. Moreover it would be wrong to execute any significant policy shifts that could be construed as a victory for the terrorists. ... Above all, a new US policy needs to be shaped by three linked realisations. First, that since the end of the cold war, there has come into being the basis of a unified world system in which the world’s other leading states are partners, not enemies, and in which all these states are under threat from similar forces. In other words, there really is the makings of an "international community" - or would be, if the US could stop acting as if it alone constituted this community. The community is based on shared adherence to western-led modernity. The only categorical opponents of this modernisation project are indeed religious maniacs - who are not to be found in Moscow or Beijing. Second, that with the exception of certain middle eastern states, the real threat to the world order comes not from states, but from below: from alienated populations. And third, since the US cannot occupy and police the Muslim world in the struggle against Muslim terrorism, it is essential to have the co-operation of leading Muslim states. This is something which was already emphasised by the aftermath of the attacks on Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. [my emphasis]

He didn't get the following exactly right. But he was correct in identifying the core problem, the fact that the American military establishing really has a strong self-perpetuaing dynamic, as John Kenneth Galbraith patiently insisted for much of his adult life:

The failure, until now, to move away from the cold war has its roots not only in various forms of inherited bigotry, but also in very strong interests within the US security establishment. This establishment was a product of the cold war, and it needs a cold war-type enemy: huge, identifiable, and, most importantly, armed with either high-tech conventional arms or with old-style nuclear missiles. Hence the endless insistence on the danger of a restoration of the Soviet Union. [my emphasis]

We need to be fair to Lieven on this. Who knew that the national security establishment and the many private firms that profit from it could recreate and bogeyman called "Al Qai'di," one based only in small part on the real existing organization lead by Osama bin Laden in 2001, that could serve as well or better than the nuclear-armed Communist Soviet Union to justify military spending at higher levels than the peak of the Cold War?

He made the following pragmatic observations that are also a reminder of opportunities lost:

One way of combating the kind of attacks we saw is of course better security in the US; but this will not necessarily prevent a terrorist attack, as long as that terrorist is prepared to die. In the end, the key to fighting this war successfully has to be good intelligence - and given the difficulty that American agents have of penetrating the world of the Islamist extremists, for such intelligence the west desperately needs Arab and Muslim allies. The Saudis in particular will have to be persuaded to drop the decades-old strategy begun by Saudi Arabia’s founder, King Ibn Saud, according to which the House of Saud has turned a blind eye to Saudi-based radicalism beyond the borders of the kingdom, as long as the radicals do not cause trouble within Saudi Arabia itself.

The help of leading Muslim states will also be essential if there is to be an invasion and occupation of some part of the Muslim world. For, in their different ways, the US bombardment of targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, and the aftermath of the Nato bombardment of Yugoslavia, have shown the inadequacy of long-range bombardment when it comes to destroying enemies on the ground, who are dispersed and hidden in a friendly civilian population. [my emphasis]

It's not that these aspects were entirely neglected. On the contrary, most of the real successes in the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) have come from police and intelligence work, not from blowing up Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and whereever else the US military may be operating without public knowledge. It didn't come from creating a sado-masochistic torture regime in Guantánamo and our "black site" prisons, either, although many Republicans including Dick Cheney were happy to know that such twisted acts were occurring.

It's worth noting here that the United States, even with a government more deeply concerned with human rights and encouraging democracy abroad than either the Cheney-Bush or the Obama Administrations, has limited ability to pick and choose which government we deal with. I can't see that the diplomatic isolation of Cuba and Iran for decades has in itself yielded useful results.

What the US should have been doing and should do now is cooperate with governments, even nasty ones, on anti-terrorism while taking very seriously basic human rights concerns. Torture is a crime. And despite Obama's irresponsible and illegal decision to give effective amnesty ("Look Forward, Not Backward") to American torture perpetrators, the torture issue isn't going away. Dick Cheney may be doing a profitable book tour. And there's no guarantee of which individuals will eventually be put before a court on torture charges from that Adminsistration. Torture goes to the hear of the rule of law. There will be an historical and legal reckoning for the Bush Administration's torture crimes. The tragedy and shame is that it should have come from the American government itself. A large portion of the American Constitution will remain in abeyance until there is a real reckoning with the torture crimes.

One reason for the emphasis on conventional military action in the American response to terrorism is what Lieven himself says at the start of this essay, that the 9/11 attacks were "a very serious act of war, conducted by a formidably cruel, brave, fanatical and well-organised enemy with a terrifying capacity for both savagery and self-sacrifice." (my emphasis) I thought that at the time. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder used the phrase "act of war" immediately after the attacks in offering his unlimited support for the US in responding to it. (Schröder soon found that applying limits was indeed necessary!)

In retrospect, this understanding was wrong. It was a spectacular act of terrorism by a small, fanatical group acting on behalf of a demented religious ideology, not on behalf of a state. But by framing it immediately as a war, it lead to the consequences we now no so well. And we surely don't know all the consequences, since a pathological attitude toward government secrecy prevailed during the Bush Administration and, tragic to say, has been intensified under the Obama Administration.

Lieven also points to that perenniel failure of American foreign policy, the need to have a real peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. While noting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major problem for US relations with the Muslim world, he reminds us, "To blame Muslim-based terrorism on Israel would be unfair and inadequate." It is part of the cause of such terrorism, even far removed geographically from Israel-Palestine. He points to severe development problems in the Arab world as having created the breeding ground for jihadist appeals. BAsed on his own research and reporting from Pakistan, he describes the appeal as follows:

In these depressing circumstances, adherence to a radical Islamist network provides a sense of cultural security, a new community and some degree of social support-modest, but still better than anything the state can provide. Poverty is recast as religious simplicity and austerity. Perhaps, even more importantly, belief provides a measure of pride: a reason to keep a stiff back amidst continual humiliations and temptations. In the blaring, stinking, violent world of the modern "third world" Muslim city, the architecture and aesthetic mood of the mosque is (like the Catholic churches in central America described by Graham Greene in The Lawless Roads) the only oasis, not only of beauty but of an ordered and coherent culture and guide to living. Of course this is true ten times over for a young male inhabitant of an Afghan, Chechen or Palestinian refugee camp.

Tags: 9/11, afghanistan war, anatol lieven, global war on terror, gwo, terrorism

The US and war in Somalia

Somalia (CIA World Factbook map)

This past week, the US made another air strike on Somalia. From the fact that the terrorist leader, Aden Hashi Ayro - who most people in the United States had surely never heard of - was reported killed by his own group, al-Shabab - which most people in the US had also never heard of - I would assume for now that the target of this targeted assassination was killed.

The following reports provide details of the story: U.S. kills Al Qaeda-linked militant, but elsewhere terrorism grows by Scott Peterson and Rob Crilly Christian Science Monitor 05/02/08; US airstrike kills head of al-Qa'ida in East Africa by Steve Bloomfield Independent 05/02/08; U.S. missiles kill al Qaeda chief in Somalia, 10 others by Mohamed Olad Hassan AP/San Francisco Chronicle 05/02/08; Attack on Terror Target Sheds Light on Somalia's Instability PBS Newshour 05/01/08. This story from 2007 provides additional background U.S. Involvement in Somalia PBS Newshour 01/26/07.

The US is involved in a proxy war in Somalia, and is even intervening directly, as in this targeted assassination. Not surprisingly, the Cheney-Bush administration claims they were attacking "Al Qa'ida", which the Republicans like Maverick McCain are increasingly using as a catch-all term for an endless sea of enemies, not just the terrorist band headed by Osama bin Laden. The tactic of targeted assassination itself, though a standard practice of Israeli counterterrorism operations and therefore assumed by many Americans to be effective, is problematic in itself. Getting rid of the old leader doesn't necessarily ensure that what comes afterward will be better, for instance.

Congress, the media and the public should also be paying more attention to this. A tangential involvement in a situation like Somalia may sometimes make sense. But "mission creep" is always a big risk. One consequence of the civil war in Somalia, which is also now mixed with an anti-occupation resistance against Ethiopian troops in Somalia, has been to create an enormous humanitarian crisis. This is one of many things that can draw the US deeper and deeper and spread our military commitments more and more thinly in locations and situations that may really be marginal to American interests.

The 05/01/08 Newshour report puts the action in a context rarely seen in American news reports. An Islamic regime took power in Somalia in 2006. The US then encouraged Ethiopia, a primarily Christian nation, to intervene in Somalia and oust the "Islamic Courts" regime, as it was called. Ethiopia did so, and briefly became a heroic image for our Republican war-lovers, who pointed to the Ethiopian army as an example of how the US should kick butt.

If any of them are still paying attention, there may have been more to learn from Ethiopia's action than just the fact that they quickly succeeded in ousting the undesired regime and installed an Ethiopia-friendly one. As ITV reporter Jonathan Miller reports on the Newshour:

Ethiopia invaded Somalia with America's blessing at the end of 2006 to oust a short-lived Islamist government. Since then, the country's descended further into madness.

The Islamists are now the insurgents. ...

The Somali Mujahideen, proud to have been designated a terrorist organization by the United States of America, they're now an official franchise of al-Qaida central. Al-Shabab, as they're known, are battling what they call the "infidel Christian occupier, Ethiopia," and what they brand its puppet regime.

Somalia has become a magnet for global jihadis. In 15 months, 750,000 of Mogadishu's residents have fled. If this had happened anywhere else, one U.N. head of mission says, it would have triggered international outrage. Instead, all it's triggered is the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. (my emphasis)

So, did the Ethiopian intervention prevent a new "state sponsor of terrorism" from securing its rule? Or did it create a situation where new jihadis are being trained, where Al Qa'ida is expanding its prestige and maybe its actual organaization, generate a humanitarian disaster, and further inflame Arab and Muslim public opinion against the US for backing a black Christian nation (Ethiopia) in invading and occupying an Arab Muslim nation (Somalia)?

Andre Le Sage of the National Defense University told the Newshour:

.. we do have to recognize that al-Shabab has really become the hard-line faction, targeting international aid workers, preventing humanitarian assistance from arriving in Somalia, targeting international journalists that have been there, and also targeting peacemakers, Somali peacemakers that are trying to broaden the base of the transitional federal government. ...

Al-Shabab is a very diverse movement, and I don't think we can talk about it as a single, hierarchical organization.

Since the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, al-Shabab and the insurgency itself has splintered. And it really covers much of southern Somalia at this point. It operates in various pockets where it's able to find support and it's able to find refuge. And it is providing protection for the al-Qaida East Africa cell.

I think we need to recognize the importance of this. Al-Shabab on its own is a major threat in the Somali context. It becomes an international threat, a threat to international peace and neighboring countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, by providing succor to al-Qaida's East Africa cell.

Even La Sage's comment here, which refers to an undefined "East Africa cell" of Al Qa'ida, gives an idea of the complexity of this particular guerrilla movement, which certainly doesn't sound like some unified body under the command-and-control of Bin Laden from his cave in Bumrush, Pakistan or wherever he is.

Ahmed Samatar of Macalester College adds:

I think the issue in Somalia, really, in the fundamental sense, is not about al-Shabab or a particular militant group. That's really the top soil.

Deep underneath, the real question is the reclamation of Somali national identity, and history, and institutions. There's a national resistance movement going on in Somalia. And the focus of that national resistance movement is that Somali transitional federal government, which was created by the Ethiopian government, that really has no legitimacy, nor does it have any competence, and then, of course, the Ethiopian invasion.

Invasion by itself is a very violent business, and the Somali people are responding to that in a variety of ways, and al-Shabab are one of those responses.

Miller's portion of the Newshour report gave an illustration of how invasion and the subsequent occupation can be quite violent:

In the latest round of fighting, more than 200 civilians reportedly wounded, the last count, at least 120 killed, many women and children among them.

Even those who've survived 17 years of civil war here say it's never been this bad.

Outside, the damaged homes of Hassan and his little brother and all those who'd made it to Madina Hospital last week, Mogadishu looking ever more like a ghost town.

Local people say Ethiopian and Somali troops [of the Ethiopian-allied government] rampaged through this residential neighborhood looking for Islamist insurgents following an attack on their base. They left death and destruction in their wake.

The Newshour report of 01/26/07 is interesting to see here 15 months later:

As part of the global war on terror, the United States has followed a policy in Somalia - through both military operations and diplomatic efforts with the international community - to prevent the lawless country from becoming a haven for terrorists.

Working in conjunction with Ethiopia in early 2007, the United States used military force in Somalia for the first time since 1994 in an attempt to kill terrorist suspects hiding in the south. Officials confirmed a second airstrike two weeks later.

The first U.S. airstrike on Jan. 8 followed a swift Ethiopian intervention in late December 2006 that drove the Islamic Courts Union, suspected of harboring al-Qaida members, into the mangrove swamps of southern Somalia.

Kenyan troops - also working in military cooperation and sharing intelligence with the Americans - sealed off their border with Somalia while U.S. Navy ships patrolled the coast to cut off escape routes by water.

The effort revealed a high level of cooperation between the United States and its regional allies - especially Ethiopia - and, for the first time, a U.S. base in Djibouti was used to conduct military operations. (my emphasis)

At that time, we had just had a victory for Our Side in pursuit of the US policy "to prevent the lawless country from becoming a haven for terrorists". What could be wrong with that?

Now Jonathan Miller reports, "Somalia has become a magnet for global jihadis." Which of course, means they are now an important front in the Global War on Terror, right? This is how mission creep is occurring for the US in Somalia. In practice, it's considerably harder to get out of these situations than to get into them.

As Peterson and Crilly report for the Christian Science Monitor, the State Department's most recent report on terrorism focuses on our ally Pakistan as the place where Al Qa'ida is having its most important success in reconstituting itself. It's unclear to me how getting ourselves more and more deeply involved in the civil war and anti-occupation resistance in Somalia is a sensible use of American power at this point.

The most recent State Dept. Country Reports on Terrorism 2007 was released on April 30. Somalia is discussed in Chapter 2, on Africa:

Somalia's fragile central government, protracted state of violent instability, long unguarded coastline, porous borders, and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula made the country an attractive location for international terrorists seeking a transit or launching point for conducting operations in Somalia or elsewhere. Despite the late 2006 defeat of the Council of Islamic Courts (CIC) in Mogadishu by Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces, the ensuing low-level conflict [bureacratese for "guerrilla warfare"] that engulfed Mogadishu and parts of south central Somalia for the remainder of the year continued to make Somalia a permissive operating environment and safe haven for both Somali and foreign terrorists. The extremist al-Shabaab (The Youth), the militant "shock troops" of the CIC whose radicalism and violent means led to the CIC's undoing, initially dispersed and fled south along the Kenyan border. Al-Shabaab, some of whom are affiliated with AQ, consists of radicalized young men, between 20 and 30 years of age. A few of its senior leaders are believed to have trained and fought with AQ in Afghanistan. Al-Shabaab extremists participated in attacks against Ethiopian and TFG security forces. Al-Shabaab and other extremists were also behind suicide bombings, the use of landmines, remote controlled roadside bombs, and targeted assassinations against Ethiopian and TFG security forces, other government officials, journalists, and civil society leaders. The African Union Peace Support Mission (AMISOM), which deployed in March to secure the air and sea ports and presidential compound, lost six soldiers to extremist attacks during the year.

Among the foreign AQ operatives believed to have enjoyed protection by the former CIC and al-Shabaab leadership were individuals wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and a 2002 hotel bombing in Kenya, including Fazul Abdallah Mohammed (aka Harun Fazul), and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. At the end of the year, Ethiopian and TFG forces remained nominally in control of Mogadishu and southern and central Somalia, though institutions of government remained weak and ineffective. Regional efforts to bring about national reconciliation and establish peace and stability in Somalia are ongoing. The capability of the TFG and other Somali local and regional authorities to carry out counterterrorism activities was limited. (my emphasis)

So, our Ethiopian-backed intervention has generated a guerrilla war aimed at Ethiopia and the pro-Ethiopian Somali government, the government itself is weak and ineffecitive, and the internal strife "continued to make Somalia a permissive operating environment and safe haven for both Somali and foreign terrorists".

By Cheney-Bush standards, that would constitute "Mission Accomplished". But how those results actually help American interests is very unclear to me.

The administration made a big point of the supposed connection between Aden Hashi Ayro and those people supposedly involved in the bombing of the American embassy in Kenya a decade ago to established a direct American interest in targeting him for assassination. I haven't noticed in any of the news reports any evidence that the individuals supposedly involvled in the Kenya bombings were affected in any way by this targeted assassination last week.

Peterson and Crilly also note:

US special forces have been operating around Somalia's borders; Mr. Ayro survived an airstrike last year. Indeed, Thursday's airstrike was the fifth by the US since the 2006 collapse of the short-lived Union of Islamic Courts (UIC)government. David Shinn, former US ambassador to Ethiopia, says it appeared to be the first to take out a key target, though he question edits impact.

"This development is going to undermine the ability of the Shabab to carry out attacks in Somalia until they can reorganize themselves," he says. "But I just don't see it having animpact on overall peace in Somalia."

So: We're carrying out air strikes against a country with which we are not formally at war and whose nominal government is supposedly friendly to us. We're 1-4 in the number of these brilliantly targeted high-tech assassination operations that actually took out their intended targets, possibly all of which blew up civilian noncombatants. The guy we apparently did kill on Thursday was a bad guy who seems not to have been targeting American interests in any direct way. Since he's dead, he can't give us any information about those Kenya embassy bombers he was supposedly connected with in some way.

This just does not look very impressive to me.

Tags: ethiopia, global war on terror, gwot, somalia, war on terror

The politics of losing a war

American poster from the Second World War; that's not one of those in which we are currently engaged, though some people seem to think so

It's impossible to say for sure whether Cheney and Bush really believe that all the militias in Iraq are going to lay down their arms and surrender to the US to be imprisoned and tortured as "illegal combatants" for years on end. Presumably a unilateral surrender along those lines would be something like their idea of "victory".

But most everyone else in the world, outside the hardcore Republicans who still support the war, everyone can see that a "victory" like that isn't going to happen. Cheney and Bush may even be creating a situation that it won't be remotely possible for a future President to present our eventual departure from Iraq as any kind of victory.

In the so-called "war on terror", to the extent that it's a "war" in any sense other than a slogan to justify allowing the President and Vice President to disregard any laws they choose, there's good reason to think we're losing that one, too.

In Bush steps up sales push to sustain his surge in Iraq by William Douglas and Margaret Talev, McClatchy Newspapers 08/22/07, reports that Bush is putting on a publicity offensive to sell The Surge, which for the moment has come to stand for the entire Iraq War policy, or at least Cheney and Bush would like it to.

Douglas and Talev also report that a group called Freedom Watch is planning to run a month-long, $15 million media buy for advertisement "in more than 20 states" to push Congress to support the Cheney-Bush Iraq policies. Two former senior White House staffers, Ari Fleisher and the organization's president, Bradley Blakeman, are member of the group. They deny that "the group's a front for the White House". And surely Ari Fleisher would never support any outfit that might bring his own credibility into question, would he?

According to Douglas and Talev's analysis, there are indications that Bush's new Sell The Surge campaign is firming up Republican support in Congress in support of the Cheney-Bush policies. For anyone who's followed how useless virtually all the Republican "war critics" in Congress have been, you have to wonder how they could tell if support had firmed up among that group. There was hardly any dissent in the first place.

There certainly hasn't been any new burst of frankness and realism from Cheney and Bush. Douglas and Talev:

Bush voiced confidence that the surge is working, even while admitting frustration about the lack of progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq. That was supposed to be the key measure of the surge’s success, the administration had said early this year when it launched the plan. The surge was supposed to ease security stress enough for Iraq's rival factions to begin cooperating. That hasn't happened. ...

Reports of tactical military progress haven’t changed Democrats' plans to hold more House and Senate votes on deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawal when they return in September. But those reports have dampened Democrats' prospects of getting more Republicans to join them. That means that Bush, wielding veto power if he must, is likely to prevail on Iraq policy, for Democrats lack the two-thirds majorities they need to overcome his veto. (my emphasis)

Obviously, we need to watch the Dems closely on this one. But there doesn't seem to be any obvious shift from opposing to supporting the war among Congressional Dems. But Congressman Brian Baird of Washington state has, for whatever reason, gone in Joe Lieberman mode, switching his position and making it a particular point to attack his own party in words that echo Republican whining:

Prior to Congress' August recess, Baird had supported legislation that called for withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin within 120 days. He now says that he wishes the measure had never come up and that he hasn't so much reversed his position as "adjusted" his thinking.

"We need to keep our force strength where it is until next spring and give the political rhetoric a rest," he said. "If the Democrats were less interested in finding fault and blaming people for a colossal mistake and if Republicans would stop being super-patriots, it would give a chance for our troops on the ground to operate."

The Big Pundits will find this to be a gratifying example of the kind of "moderation" called for in the cult of High Broderism.

But the Dems need to exercise some party discipline over this. It's one thing to break with the party on an issue, even a vital one like this. It's another to make a point to attack the Democrats over it. If he wants to be a Trojan Horse for the Republicans to earn the applause of the disciples of High Broderism or for whatever reason, the Dems should treat him as a Trojan Horse.

Since the administration is going all-out now to set the stab-in-the-back excuse on the Iraq War as a fixture of the public discussion, we need to pay attention to how dishonest it is. For example, Trojan Horse Baird says that war critics should shut the hell up until 2008 sometime, and that "would give a chance for our troops on the ground to operate." Is there any evidence at all that the war debate has prevented American troops from operating exactly the way their generals and Commander-in-Chief wanted them to? Bush and his generals say constantly that the military is getting exactly what they need to fight the war. So hopefully some reporter will has ask Baird just what the [Cheney] he's talking about.

And what about all those Republicans who were just recently wringing their hands in their deep concern over the situation in Iraq?

"While political reconciliation at the national level has come too slowly, grassroots reconciliation in provinces like Anbar and other Iraqi towns is encouraging," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Earlier this year he'd suggested that Republicans might start backing off of their support for the war by September if the surge wasn't working. Now he sees it differently.

“Everyone agrees that more progress on political reconciliation is essential, but pushing for a precipitous withdrawal when the momentum is ours is not just irrational, it is negligent,” said Boehner, sharpening the pro-surge GOP attack line. (my emphasis)

See, what a surprise!

Meanwhile, Alexandra Marks in the Christian Science Monitor reports on A new push for change in the war on terror 08/22/07. Short version:

In this year's Terrorism Index, a survey released Monday by Foreign Policy magazine, 84 percent of these experts believe the nation is losing the war on terror, while more than 90 percent say the world is growing more dangerous for Americans.

Trying to organize a "war" of any kind, ideological, political or military, against "terrorism" is pointless. As Zbigniew Brzezinski put it in a speech back in October of 2003 (A Must-Read Speech American Prospect Online 10/31/03):

I think that calls for serious debate in America about the role of America in the world, and I do not believe that that serious debate is satisfied simply by a very abstract, vague and quasi-theological definition of the war on terrorism as the central preoccupation of the United States in today's world. That definition of the challenge in my view simply narrows down and over-simplifies a complex and varied set of challenges that needs to be addressed on a broad front.

It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.

But not in an abstract, theologically-defined fashion, people, to quote again our highest spokesmen, "people who hate things, whereas we love things" - literally. Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom. They hate some of us. They hate some countries. They hate some particular targets. But it's a lot more concrete than these vague quasi-theological formulations. (my emphasis)

Marks' report is specifically on a survey of terrorism experts by Foreign Policy magazine and the (Democratic-leaning) Center for American Progress just published in that magazine; the survey is called the "Terrorism Index". She quotes Bruce Hoffman:

"This poll presents an enormously bleak and melancholy picture ... and it's difficult not to read it as a complete repudiation of the entire current conduct on the war on terrorism," says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "Where we have been particularly remiss or ineffectual is in fighting the al Qaeda brand as hard as we've fought the al Qaeda terrorists."

What concerns me about some of the discussion as reported in that article, though, is that many of our terrorism "experts" seem to be trying to shoehorn the fight against jihadist terrorism into a Cold War framework. That doesn't sound terribly promising to me, either.

What sounds more sensible to me is to look closely at what countries have done who faced chronic terrorism threats, like Spain with ETA, the Basque separatist group. The Spanish newspapers report some development related to ETA practically every day. (For example, Libertad para el jefe de Batasuna detenido por el 'Zutabe' de ETA El País 23.08.07; Rubalcaba advierte de que 'el silencio de Batasuna es el peor de los augurios' El Mundo 23.08.07) It's an issue the political parties take very seriously. They have successes, they have failures, and there is even a certain amount of demagoguery over it.

But the whole country doesn't stay in a state of craziness over it. They haven't tried to declare the King or the Prime Minister above the law, or assumed the right to arrest, detain and torture "enemy combatants" or their own citizens indefinitely.

Marks also reports that many of the experts suggest, "The solution lies in changing US policy in the region and supporting Islamic scholars who can show how al Qaeda is distorting the Koran." Well, that sounds good and even makes sense. Except that, you know, the Iraq War has made the US so intensely unpopular among most Muslims that an overt association with official American ideological efforts would be the kiss of death for Muslim theologians who cooperated. Unfortunately, pretty literally a kiss of death in some cases.

The article referred in in the Sept/Oct issue of Foreign Policy, which is published by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, The Terrorism Index. It makes for some interesting reading in itself. For example:

It may be the most common - and, for many, the most convincing - argument against a quick exit from Iraq: Pulling American forces out would only move the war’s front line from the streets of Baghdad to the streets of Anytown, U.S.A. Or, as President George W. Bush often says, "The enemy would follow us home."
Or would it? It’s a scenario that the index’s experts say is unlikely. Only 12 percent believe that terrorist attacks would occur in the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Eighty-eight percent of the experts said that either such a scenario was unlikely or that they see no connection between a troop withdrawal from Iraq and terrorist attacks inside the United States. This line of thinking was consistent across party lines, with 58 percent of conservatives saying they did not believe terrorist attacks would occur at home as a result of a military drawdown in Iraq. (my emphasis in italics)

Tags: ari fleisher, brian baird, bruce hoffman, global war on terror, gwot, iraq war, war on terror

With friends like these...

Douglas Farah reports in The End of the Line in Pakistan? 04/02/07 at his blog on a presentation he attended by Alexis Debat of the Nixon Center and Seth Jones of Rand Corporation:

The conclusion was that the alliance of necessity and convenience between the United States and Pakistan has reached its useful end. Pakistan’s national interests diverge widely from U.S. and European interests in fighting Islamist militants and creating a stable, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan. Pakistan is no longer an ally, but takes a direct hand in fomenting the Taliban and al Qaeda, while happily taking the billions of dollars in US aid that continue to flow.

... Both [presenters] have recently spend time on different sides of the Pakistan/Afghan border. Jones has written an article on his finding ..., where he concludes that "there is significant evidence that the Taliban, Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (HIC), al Qaeda and other insurgent groups use Pakistan as a sanctuary for recruitment and support. In addition, there is virtual unanimity that Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has continued to provide assistance to Afghan insurgent groups." ...

From the other side of the border, Debat found that there are now about 25 insurgent groups in Waziristan alone, and that the old Saudi/Gulf pipeline of funds, coupled with a significant flow of cash from Malaysia and protection from Pakistan, have allowed these groups to flourish. (my emphasis)

Say what? Our good friends the Saudis are funding Sunni jihadists in Afghanistan? In addition to the Sunni guerrillas they're funding in Iraq? But that latter one's okay because there our real enemies are the Iranians and their Shi'a allies in Iraq. No, wait, that's not quite it. Our enemies are the Iranians in Iran but their Iraqi Shi'a allies are our friends because we're helping them fight the Sunni insurgents. The ones our friends in Saudi Arabia are funding.

But Pakistan is helping us fight those bad Iranians by sending in Pakistani terrorists - no, they're on our side so they're "militants" - Pakistani militants to kill and capture Iranian soldiers, according to this report, Pakistani militants staging raids inside Iran ABC News 04/04/07:

The U.S. has been secretly advising and encouraging a Pakistani militant group that has carried out a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran, ABC News reported on Tuesday, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources.

The raids have resulted in the deaths or capture of Iranian soldiers and officials, ABC reported.

The group, members of the Baluchi tribe, operates from Pakistan's gas-rich province of Baluchistan, just across the border from Iran, the report said. (my emphasis)

So that's good. Except when Pakistan helps the Al Qaida type groups that are killing NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and, you know, supposedly started this whole war on terror thing by the 9/11 attacks and are our main enemies. Well, our main enemies except maybe for the Iranians who helped us in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until we decided they were bad guys and are a bogeyman for us now.

Gee, you would think that the fools who came up with the Iran-Contra scheme were running Middle East and South Asia policies! Oh, wait...

Fortunately for us, there's always soothing PR to ease our troubled minds: 60 dead in Pakistan border fighting by Ishtiaq Mahsud, AP 04/04/07; Tribesmen’s call to arms Dawn (Pakistan) 04/03/07.

See, Pakistan is helping is go after Uzbek foreign fighters. Because they are said to be agents of, well, the United States, Israel and Russia:

Meanwhile, the jirga authorised the tribal lashkar to capture dead or alive the Uzbek militants operating under the command of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader, Tahir Yuldeshiv.

Sources said that volunteers of the lashkar would be dispatched to Zera Lota, Azam Warsak, Shin Warsak, Ghwakhwa, Jaghundai and other areas and would coordinate with the supporters of Maulvi Nazir. ...

“Tahir is the agent of the CIA, KGB and MOSAD. His men have killed around 200 innocent in South Waziristan,” said a pamphlet. (my emphasis)

Okay, maybe not so soothing.

Still, it's nice to have friends in the world? Right? I mean, if they weren't our friends they might start helping the jihadists who are out to kill Americans.

Tags: afghanistan war, global war on terror, gwot, pakistan, saudi arabia

Phony charges against some Muslim charities?

Katherine Hughes argues that the Cheney-Bush administration has been pumping up its still-meager track record of prosecuting terorist cases by going after legitimate Muslim charities in Criminalizing Compassion in the War on Terror Truthout.org (from Fellowship Nov/Dec 2006; accessed 11/20/06).

Tags: global war on terror, gwot, muslim charities, terrorist financing, war on terror

Fundamentalists and the End Times

Apocalyptic expectations, religious ideas about the end of the world, are very important for the Christian Right. They play a particularly prominent and pernicious role in the Christian Right attitude toward Israel and Jews in general.

I just came across a good, brief description of fundamentalist apocalyptic views in Jessica Stern's Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill (2003). I think it's clear in the context of the quote that she's not implying that all or anything close to all fundamentalists that hold this belief indulge in violent extremism or support it. The Christian Identity movement that she mentions is a far-right version of Christianity that has more influence on the Christian Right and today's Republican Party than most of them would care to admit:

Like more mainstream Protestant fundamentalists, adherents of Christian Identity take the Scriptures literally and focus a great deal on the End times. A key difference is the understanding of when Jesus appears during the tribulation. "Pretribulation" fundamentalist Protestants believe that Jesus will save them from experiencing the Apocalypse through a "divine rapture," the simultaneous ascension to heaven of all good Christians. Followers of Christian Identity expect to be present during the Apocalypse. Christian militants who subscribe to "posttribulation" beliefs consider it their duty to attack the forces of the Antichrist, who will become leader of the world during the Endtimes. He will offer the people a false religion and a single world government. The strength of international institutions promoting world government, including the United Nations and the international banks, are indications that the Antichrist is already here, they believe. Identity Christianity has become the dominant religion of the racist right in America. Adherents include Gordon Kahl, a leader in the Posse Comitatus movement who died in a shoot-out with the FBI in 1983 and became the first Identity "martyr"; Randy Weaver, whose wife and son were killed in a government siege at his house in 1992; and Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for killing 168 people in the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Like other apocalyptic sects in the past, some Christian Identity adherents believe that they are now experiencing the tribulations as described in Revelation, that America is currently the equivalent of the corrupted and depraved Babylon. Others are not sure, nor are they certain how long the period of tribulation will last. I called up the Reverend Robert Millar, the leading cleric of the American racist right, to ask his views. "Armageddon could come anytime in the next thirty, forty, fifty years, it might come in 2160, or it might even be five years from now," Pastor Millar tells me. "We are not really hung up on the date."

Tags: authoritarianism, christian identity, christian terrorism, global war on terror, gwot, jessica stern, terrorism, war on terror

Iraq War: Recalling the Prewar Days

The prewar claims of connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda did not go unchallenged at the time. For instance, this article from Nov. 2002, almost five months before the invasion of Iraq, noted that our European allies were skeptical about this claim: Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda Los Angeles Times 11/04/02.

The article noted that in a recent speech, Bush had been unequivocal about Saddam's connection to al-Qaeda: "We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda." But for those who were able to hear, despite the war fever in America, European governments and prosecutors that had been effectively pursuing al-Qaeda terrorists had real doubts. From Spain, whose conservative government supported the war, came this criticism from investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon. He is well-known for his hard line against Basque terrorists in Spain and was then prosecuting al-Qaeda suspects in connection with the 9/11 attacks.

A war on Iraq will not diminish the terrorist threat. It will probably increase it. ... It could radicalize the situation in the Middle East. ... As for the investigations of [the] Sept. 11 [attacks], doors would close in the Arab world that have helped in the fight against Al Qaeda. And a war would do nothing to bolster the investigation into the attacks in the United States. ... I have seen no link to Al Qaeda. No one has demonstrated it to me. ... And therefore we have to be very careful not to confuse the citizens. One thing is that you don't like the Iraqi regime, that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. But there are many terrible dictators. That's not a reason to start a war ...

The article described similar skepticism from officials in France, Britain and Germany. An unnamed German intelligence source dismissed the talk of an Iraq/al-Qaeda connection as "nonsense" and commented, "Not even the Americans believe it any more." It's sad to say, but allied governments had very good reason to doubt the claims Bush's government was making about the urgency of the Iraqi threat.

Tags: baltasar garzon, global war on terror, gwot, war on terror

Afghan War: Progress in Nation-Building

Continuing with the nostalgia, this article from just over a year ago on Afghanistan is a sober reminder of where we may be in a year, both there and with Iraq: Afghanistan adrift politically, economically USA Today 11/14/02.

Other Afghans also say life here is different -— and far more dangerous - than they expected a year ago:

* The U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai has little control outside of Kabul, the capital. And the new government is racked with dissension.

* Warlords continue to control much of the countryside. Already, several factional power struggles have broken out.

* Extremists, in hiding outside the well-protected capital, wait for an opportunity to strike. Taliban and al-Qaeda forces lurk in the mountains. U.S. troops on patrol in search of terrorists in eastern Afghanistan face almost daily hostility and attacks.

Unfortunately, the news reports indicate that the situation isn't a lot different today. The NATO forces have extended their range somewhat beyond Kabul. But the US has more troops in Afghanistan than ever, warlords still largely control the provinces, and the Taliban is growing more and more powerful.

This piece is a also a reminder of the stakes in Afghanistan, which in practice has for the last decade represented a more direct threat to the US than Iraq did:

The United States had the chance to bring stability, economic rejuvenation and democracy to Afghanistan in 1989, when the U.S.-backed Afghan guerrillas drove out the occupying Soviet forces. But once the Soviets were gone, Washington lost interest. ...

Today, graduates of Afghan terrorist camps are spread out across the globe. They are credited with recent attacks and threats in Indonesia, the Philippines, northern Africa, Europe and the USA. Many others are across the Afghan border in Pakistan, waiting to see whether the United States leaves or wears out its welcome here.

Tags: afghanistan war, global war on terror, gwot, war on terror

A religious criticism of the Christian-warrior general

The liberal Protestant magazine Sojourners has an message to General "my-God's-bigger-than-your-God" Boykin by Jim Wallis on its Web site:

General, I think the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" must have been written just for you. I'm sure your superiors have already given you a lesson in politics and public relations. And I've heard you have toned down your opinions and said you didn't mean to offend anyone. Whether you keep your job is a political question, the outcome of which we will know soon enough.

But I want to raise some different issues: biblical theology, bad teaching, and church discipline. General, your theology bears no resemblance to biblical teaching. You utterly confuse the body of Christ with the American nation. The kingdom of God doesn't endorse the principalities and powers of nation-states, armies, and the ideologies of empire; but rather calls them all into question. You even miss the third verse of "Onward Christian Soldiers," which reminds us, "Crowns and thrones may perish, Kingdoms rise and wane, But the Church of Jesus, constant will remain." And let's not misinterpret the famous first verse, "Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before." The cross, General, not the Special Forces.

The AOL Journal windmills of my mind has some comments on politics and exotic religious ideas here and here. (She's listening to Nanci Griffith, too, always a nice thing to do.)

The Sojourners Web site also has a brief article called The Hungry Spirit: Damnation Will Not Be Televised, which has some interesting tidbits in it. I especially like her little confession, involving one of the all-time great TV shows:

Almost everything I know about hell's eschatological aspects I learned from watching UPN's now-defunct series Buffy the Vampire Slayer - sort of an interactive "Divine Comedy."

Buffy was more theologically sophisticated than General Boykin, that's for sure.

Tags: christian fundamentalism, christian general, christian right, christianism, global war on terror, gwot, jerry boykin, jim wallis, william boykin, war on terror, william arkin

General Boykin's non-apology apology

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin has really caught some flak over his remarks about how his religious beliefs animate his approach to fighting terrorism. He's now responded with a non-apology apology. That's a statement that's couched as an apology but isn't really.

For instance, if I say, "All left-handed Presbyterians are morons," and someone demands that I apologize for an offensive remark. So I respond by saying, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my comment on left-handed Presbyterian morons." That's not an apology, it's a sneer. I'm "apologizing" for someone else's response to what I said. What it really means is, "Anyone who was offended by what I said is a pathetic jerk."

General "God is on my side" Boykin gave a classic example by saying, "For those who have been offended, I offer a sincere apology." Translation: For anyone who claims they were offended, I'm sorry you're such a pathetic whiner and enemy of the One True God; for everyone else, of course, God is on Our Side.

Oddly, this same Los Angeles Times article I just linked quotes "Eugene Fidell, a military law specialist in Washington" as saying he was not aware of Boykin having broken any rules by his comment. "But he said the general's comments posed a 'management problem' for Boykin's superiors because they appeared to reflect 'profoundly poor judgment'." Uh, I would say so.

But Daily Kos has pointed out that military regulations do put limits on the situations in which a soldier can appear in public in uniform. (Boykin has often made his controversial religious declarations while in uniform.) More specifically, Army Regulation 670-1-10 (j)1 and (j)2 prohibit the wearing of uniforms in "the furtherance of any political or commercial interests" or while "participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority."

So whether he violated regulations is still an open question in my mind.

Tags: christian fundamentalism, christian general, christian right, christianism, global war on terror, gwot, jerry boykin, william boykin, war on terror, william arkin

Onward Christian soldiers

Sometimes I read news that really scares me. The new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence is Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin. He's in charge of the search for Osama bin Laden (we haven't all forgotten him, have we?) and Saddam Hussein. Gen. Boykin is a born-again Christian who sees his job as a bit more than a secular calling. He's been known to make public statements like these:

[Appearing] in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy named Satan."

One Middle East expert quoted in the article flags the "Judeo-Christian" term as playing into radical Islamic propaganda against the "Christian-Zionist" enemy. In theological terms, too, it's a garbled concept, even though I know it's sometimes used by Christians with the intent to be inclusive.

"I knew my God was bigger than his [a Somali warlord's]. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

It may be worth noting that the US decided to pull out of the idol-worshipping warlord's country. But I guess that would be too much of a theological fine point.

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this.

[Of George W. Bush:] "He's in the White House because God put him there."

I've never really thought of the pro-Bush majority on the Supreme Court as messengers of God. But maybe my faith isn't as clear as the General's.

Military analyst William Arkin calls Boykin "an intolerant extremist who has spoken openly about how his belief in Christianity has trumped Muslims and other non-Christians in battle."

Tags: christian fundamentalism, christian general, christian right, christianism, global war on terror, gwot, jerry boykin, william boykin, war on terror, william arkin

Iraq War: Dick Cheney vs. terror, terror, terror

Former Halliburton CEO and current Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech Friday to the hardline conservative Heritage Foundation justifying the Iraq War. Here is a quote summarizing the basic point of the speech:

[T]error ... terrorists ... terror ... September 11, 2001 ... threats ... evil men ... a philosophy of hatred ... 9/11 ... enemies ... 9/11 ... terrorists ... deadlier means of striking us ... terrorists ... chemical, biological or nuclear weapons ... terrorists ... terror regime ... ultimate nightmare ... devastation to our country ... 9/11 ... enemies ... terrorists ... weapons of mass destruction ... terrorist enemy ... terrorists ... terror state ... deadly weapons ... terrorist network ... catastrophic terrorist violence ... terrorists ... 9/11 ... terrorists ... attack ... bombing ... murders ... bombings ... killings ... attack ... attack ... threat ... attack ... 9/11 ... 9/11 ... terrorists ... September 11th ... terrorists ... attacks ... determined, organized, ruthless enemy ... terror ... terrorists ... terror ... terrorists ... terrorists ... terrorists ... terror ... terror ... menace ... reckless and sudden aggression ... terror ... terrorists ... suicide bombers ... poisons, gases ... weapons of mass destruction ... 9/11 ... terrorist ... weapons of mass destruction ... hidden weapons programs ... extremely deadly materials ... WMD programs ... WMD-related program activities ... clandestine network ... chemical and biological weapons ... biological weapons ... biological weapons ... uranium enrichment ... 9/11 ... terrorists ... September 11th ... Terrorist enemies of our country ... the most lethal weapons known to man ... terrorists ... terror states ... gathering threats ... gathering threat ... 9/11 ... terror ... terrorists ... terrorists ... terror ... threat ... dangers ... terror camps ... terrorist ... terrorists ... biological weapons ... deadly agents ... weapons mass destruction [sic] ... terrorists ... attacking America ... terrorists ... Terrorists ... evil ... threats ... a time of peril.

I may have missed a reference or two to "terror" or "9/11" somewhere in there.

Dick Cheney is still chanting the same old prewar chant.

Iraq is a good picture right now of where Dick Cheney's kind of foreign policy will take us.

Tags: bush administration, cheney, dick cheney, global war on terror, gwot, war on terror