What War on Terrorism?
By Larry Johnson on September 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM in Current Affairs
George W. Bush and his neocon buddies love to hype the “WAR” on terrorism and talk tough. Their basic premise is that we must “fight” terrorists using military force rather than that wimpy law enforcement stuff. This is neither new nor news. John Kerry made this point, unsuccessfully, during his ill-fated 2004 Presidential campaign. Opening a can of military whoop ass on terrorists resonates in the hearts of red blooded Americans, but it is largely patent nonsense. Once you get past the rhetorical excess and political posturing, it turns out that the U.S. military really does not have much of a role to play in combating terrorism.
It is not a lack of desire. The problem is that the capabilities inherent in the military do not match up with organization and behavior of terrorists. The U.S. military, even the most highly classified special operations forces, are not good at precise, limited use of force. Compounding the challenge is that the groups responsible for most of the terrorist mayhem do not sit around established military bases marching in formation wearing nifty uniforms. And they do not spend a lot of resources on building and maintaining extensive physical infrastructure. If they did, then they would be toast. Those are the types of fat targets the special operations warriors are gifted at whacking. But those rarely present themselves in the real world.
I am revisiting this issue in light of a recent article by neocon extraordinaire, Gerecht writes:
It seems to me you are trying to take us back to a pre-9/11 world where we add up the body count from terrorist attacks and if the death toll is lower than, say, the number of people who die from “lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts,” then we should just calm down and avoid the use of force since we never know what the baleful collateral effects might be. Do you remember the famous Larry Johnson op-ed in The New York Times the summer before 9/11 that used such reasoning? Take a look at that astonishing op-ed and then go to page 81 of WRW where I found the above line. Dealing with terrorism–dealing with rogue states that use terrorism and are developing nuclear weapons –will surely require us in the future to prepare for war, and may actually require us to bomb, perhaps even invade another country. Obviously, no one should want to do this, but to walk away from the challenge of terrorism by downplaying its potential to wreak havoc and by playing up the fear of unforeseen consequences from American military action is to invite our enemies to escalate.
Typical of Reuel, he has trouble getting facts right. I have never argued we should not use force against terrorist targets. But unlike Reuel, who has no experience in this area, I have spent the last 14 years working with U.S. military special operations forces who have the actual mission of combating terrorism. I know what their authorities are, what their plans are, and what their capabilities are. It is not a lack of desire on the part of our soldiers, at least the special operations forces, that has limited their involvement in counter terrorism operations.
There are several factors that, together, conspire to keep military forces, even the highly regarded special operations forces, from taking action against terrorist targets. Getting timely, operational intelligence is the first hurdle. Notwithstanding the vow to get Bin Laden dead or alive, for example, the killer sheik remains on the loose along with his deputy, Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Even if you locate the targets, there is the problem of getting there. In the fantasy world of Jack Bauer and Hollywood, the military mounts up and charges off. They grab a plane, fly away, and land unchallenged in some obscure airfield where they fire shots without a care. In the real world, however, there are the complications of distance, time, geography, and sovereignty. If the target is in Somalia and our strike force is in the United States, for instance, then you are looking at a minimum of 18 hours in flight to get forces to the target. But just because you know where someone is on Monday, October 1st, does not mean they will be in the same place on October 2nd.
The success (and even that is arguable) we have achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan is not typical and is teaching our military forces some bad habits. We do not have to bother asking Maliki or Karzai for permission to hit suspected terrorist targets. So far our forces have a green light. Our military forces, complete with airlift and logistics support, are already in place and can get to most targets within a few hours. Despite these advantages, our operations against terrorist targets have not been accompanied by a significant decline in insurgent violence. In fact, after our forces killed the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Al Zarqawi, in June of 2006, the level of violence by terrorists continued to increase for the subsequent six months.
Unfortunately, conducting military operations in the rest of the world, even with highly classified special operations forces, is not easy and rarely occurs. The biggest problem is getting the permission of the local government to let U.S. forces come into the country. When Peruvian terrorists took hostages at the Japanese embassy in 1996, U.S. military forces were on alert in Panama and ready to assist. In fact, British and German special operations forces as well were on alert and offered to help. The Peruvians rejected all outside assistance and handled the matter themselves.
Another dimension of the military’s role in battling terrorists is reported by Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein. His article, Red Tape Snarls Pentagon Counterterror Plan, describes the turf war between the State Department and the Pentagon on the employment of Military Liaison Elements in Africa. Jeff interviewed me for this story and I told him:
“It’s not like the military is being held back by DoD or State to go kill terrorists,” he told me. “There are no viable targets in Africa that lend themselves to action by U.S. military forces. The threats that do exist-and there are real terrorist threats in Africa-will be most effectively handled by intelligence and law enforcement assets.”
The threat of terrorism, particularly for the U.S. military, has become a raison d’etre in the same way that the Soviet Union fueled budgets and weapons systems during the cold war. But with this critical difference–the Soviets actually had a five million man Army, thousands of ships, intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear subs, and a genuine first strike capability. All of the terrorist groups in the world, even if they combined their forces, do not begin to approach the scale and scope of threats the west faced during the Cold War.
At some point we need to recover common sense in dealing with terrorism. The threat is genuine but not ubiquitous. No terrorist organization in the world has demonstrated the ability to project and conduct sustained operations outside of their geographic support base. This means that coordinated, sustained pressure to disrupt financing, training, and recruitment will pay significant dividends in reducing the scale and scope of terrorist activity.
In 2004 and 2005 the level of international terrorist activity soared to unprecedented levels. There were significant and sustained mass casualty attacks–most attributable in one fashion or another to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda sympathizers. But during the last two years (2006-7) we have seen a significant decline in mass casualty terrorist attacks outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Although U.S. Government statistics for 2006 reported an increase in attacks over those recorded in 2005, a close look at the data shows that most of the attacks caused little harm to persons or property. Strong police reactions to terrorist attacks in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in 2005 significantly degraded the ability of Islamic radicals to sustain operations.
When the history of the Bush Administration’s “war” on terrorism is written, two critical shortcomings will emerge–the failure to sustain operations in Afghanistan and completely dismantle Al Qaeda and the failure to create a coordinated counter terrorism strategy that employed the vast resources of the Federal Government. The Bush Administration has talked a good game but, in terms of execution, it has fumbled the ball.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
I was listening to a caller on the radio last night who was practically screaming about how we have to stop pointing out all the awful things they’re doing and DO SOMETHING about them. The poor guy was nearly hysterical, pressure of speech so intense it almost shoved me off my chair, going on about the million little things each of us should be doing out there in the world around us, never changing the subject until we’ve righted the heinous wrongs mounting into what is very clearly turning into an outright fascist United States. I feel something like I imagine he does, with each new blog post by intelligence professionals and other people with credentials and connections.
We know what they’re doing. It’s time to stop them.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Great summation,Fred.
And if the out come is in doubt, get a bigger hammer.
Modernity is the cause and probably the cure for rabid Islamic militancy
I couldn’t read any further. We know that some people are back to using a donkey for transportation in Iraq, right?
“Modernity is the cause and probably the cure for rabid Islamic militancy”
What utter orientalist rubbish.
Great article Larry.
They don’t hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because our imperialistic global dominating foreign policy in their countries, stealing their natural resources and telling them how to run their countries.
Who appointed us ruler and overseer of the whole world?
We arrogantly think Democracy is the best form of government, but we have NO RIGHT to jam it down other people’s throats.
We have in the past successfully tried to show the world how Democracy can work, but the Bush/Cheney has sucessfully has bombed the concept of democracy back to the stone age.
As you so eloquently pointed out military might etc will NEVER get rid of terrorism by themselves. There have been “terrorists” since the beginning of time. Were the American Revolutionary fighters “terrorists”? In the British minds they were. Our founding fathers ultimately won because the British couldn’t maintain a war so far from home. Ultimately the Iraqi’s will win for the same reasons.
Why not give peace a chance…John Lennon
Speaking of which I am submitting a link which you might find interesting.
A Message (In English) From The Iraqi Resistance.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18483.htm
Reuel Marc Gerecht has some nerve cited that OPED of your Johnson. How many OPEDs has Gerecht written where he has been wrong?
Never hear peep out of this snake oil salesman….
Who and what are we fighting?
Some years ago, the Christian Science Monitor did an interesting story about a midwife in Afghanistan and some of her patients. The risk of death from childbirth was about 1 in 10 for mothers, and higher for their infants.
The midwife delivered birth supplies: plastic tarp and dental floss (both donated by an NGO based in Sweden, IIRC). The plastic tarp was to provide elementary sanitation, by ensuring that the mother didn’t give birth on a mud floor. The dental floss was to be used for cutting the umbilical cord (preferable to a dirty knife, which would almost guarantee infection).
After 20+ years of war, these Afghani women may as well have been living in the 7th century, in terms of basic health care.
Long-range missiles, night-vision goggles, aircraft carriers, and Stealth bombers have not shown themselves to be effective remedies for poverty, disease, ignorance, or rapid urbanization (and its associated psychological and social impacts).
If military resources were the solutions to Afghanistan’s problems, after the disastrous, vicious invasion by Russia, followed by the Taliban, followed by more military activity, then the Afghani’s would have low birth rates, extended longevity, high levels of education nationwide, low infant mortality and maternal rates, and probably the best overall health on the planet. And they’d be growing something other than poppies.
Excellent Larry, you took his sorry ass apart piece by piece. Well done, sir.
What a blabbering gasbag Gerecht is. And he uses an all too common ploy by these creeps, it is actually right out of their play book - when they justify the invasion of Iraq by using such false analogies such as more people are killed in traffic accidents, or cite the number of American citizens murdered here in the states to cavalierly justify and minimize those killed and wounded in Iraq, never mind Iraqis - usually giving homicide statistics of major US cities.
Top it with a Churchill quote, a hefty helping of mumbo jumble psychobabble - and something like the last good democrat was JFK - and ouila’ - you have the standard neocon rebuttal, served on a platter.
And if it’s served on a diamond encrusted platinum platter of bloviating high mindedness - it’s not a steaming pile of bullshit.
They believed Perle when their hero stated that the job in Iraq could be done with 40,000 troops.
These creeps stood behind Mylroie’s false assertions and Wolfowitz’s drooling over her book, which he cited as gospel - in her stating that Saddam was heavily involved with the ‘93 WTC bombing. And of course, we are still in a pre 9/11 mindset,when 9/11 was on their watch.
And God forbid if you tell these SOBs that they used a technique described by Hermann Goering during Nuremberg - you’re a traitorous, anti Semite who hates America.
Goering: “Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.”
Gilbert:
Goring:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
They believed Perle when their hero stated that the job in Iraq could be done with 40,000 troops.
I don’t believe he believed that. They send didn’t enough soldiers because if the area was pacified there wouldn’t be any chaos to blame on Iran and Syria.
They counted on chaos. They created chaos with The Salvador Option so Gelb and the neocons could get the Oded Yinon divide and conquer plan on.
Don’t forget it.
I don’t agree. It is plain to me that they really and truly expected Iraqis to view them as liberators, greet them with flowers and hugs, embrace Ahmad Chalabi, accept the dismantling and transformation of their state complete with the installation of a permanent American military presence, and life would go on, freeing them up to go after Iran, Syria, etc. When instead the Iraqis rose up in opposition, they were completely flummoxed, and had no clue how to proceed, so they used the only language Americans understand when faced with opposition - massive, brutal force. They simply did not know what else to do.
Cee - Thanks for the response. I’ve heard that argument. That things now are going exactly how they planned it. Interesting, perhaps you’re right.
Myself, I have a hard time giving them that much credit.
I’m of the school that Perle put more stock in the INC (the London based Gucci Guerillas - and primarily in his pal - Ahmed Chalabi) then those who had actual knowledge of the region, paricularly in intelligence and military matters. (Remember Chalabi’s End Game and the disastrous failed attempt to toppple Saddam in ‘95) and suffered greatly from the incestuous, dangerous malaise of group think. And let’s not forget detached and delusional - Chalabi knew he would be overwhelmingly installed by the people of iraq as their leader.
According to Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC, Ret.)
IMHO, the reason for the low troups was because they believed that that Iraq would rise up immediately and topple Saddam with just a bigger version of Chalabi’s failed end game. Which would lead to the entire region following suit with governments favorable toward Tel Aviv.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ahmed_Chalabi
Nobody bothers to point out that terrorism was been on the decline worldwide in the decade or so prior to 9/11. Perhaps with the failure of the USSR it is too hard to say that any other reason for that decline was important. Throughout that time we had a defined approach to terrorism, today we don’t even have a definition of terrorism that we can agree on.
Precisely, terrorists are fighting battles of politics and we are fighting a war. Both spill blood but our current approach is like cutting a steak with a sledge hammer atop a glass pane.
What does the Bush administration mean by “war on terror” and “terrorist” anyway? They’re deliberately applying the term very broadly beyond terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, to include the militaries of other nations or any group they believe may pose a future threat.
yea leslie..The bush doctrine..
it’s got one more year to effectively rule the world..
They have even declared anyone who interferes with the profit-making ability of companies dealing in animal products (which includes nearly every company in the country to one degree or another) a terrorist and prosecutable as such.
What appears to work as effective counterterrorism is a combination of special forces and intelligence aiding local police and military to disrupt terrorist group operations followed by peacebuilding as countermotivation e.g. directing youth towards the solutions of the world’s problems.
What war on terrorism? Would someone please tell me what the meaurement of success is that we are using?
The same standard of performance as Tiger Repellent.
A Vendor (let’s call it BushCo) can charge you $1,000 for a month’s supply of an evil-smelling ointment alleged to be Tiger Repellent, which you will be instructed to apply topically on a regular schedule in order to keep Tigers from biting you.
Despite the fact that, statistcally, you have a neglible chance of being molested by a Tiger on this continent, should the month pass without a Tiger biting you, the marketer of Tiger Repellent (BushCo) can, nonetheless, make legitimate claims for the efficacy of his product. And attempt to convince you to buy ANOTHER month’s supply.
So, just because no America-hating Islamofascist has suicide-bombed Disney Mundo since 9/11 doesn’t mean that Shrubbie, Cheney, Chertoff and the Boys in the Bund haven’t kept it from happening.
See the logic?
Must be a full moon…
No. Not a full moon, just us dropping our pants and bending over to show you what you are.
To break it into terms that you may understand, Rob; that Fred was illustrating; it’s called ‘fearmongering’. It’s to keep the public scared and in fear. Mostly of themselves, if not of each other. Psyops. It’s a branch of marketing, as of late. But, Fred is also saying that because nothing has not happened doesn’t mean that it can’t and those in ‘power’ (unfortunately) are seemingly doing their jobs at preventing it from happening.
Larry’s article can be boiled down to four simple words: “Softly, softly, catchee monkey.”
Reminds me of the famous “Dambusters Raid” of 1943, where the RAF used special “bouncing bombs” to destroy some dams in the Ruhr Valley. The raid went off well and dams WERE breached, but the dams the bombs were designed to burst WEREN’T hyroelectric dams that powered German war factories. All the raid accomplished was to flood a lot of farmland, of which Germany had plenty.
The joke was that the bombs couldn’t work against the vital hydroelectric dams, so they burst the agricultural dams that the bombs could work on. They then used propaganda to make it sound like they’d silenced the war factories. Bizarre!
“a caller on the radio last night who was practically screaming about how we have to stop pointing out all the awful things they’re doing and DO SOMETHING about them. The poor guy was nearly hysterical,”
Do not discount the real fear in some people. This campaign of fear by the right wing noise machine has some folks truly scared and ready to buy into anything that claims to protect them from those “evil doers.”
All BS, of course, except for that real fear. That must be tackled, and those folks convinced on an emotional level that another course of action meets their needs.
KS, you misunderstand. The guy was so upset about the criminality in the White House, the slide into fascism of our country, the warring, the torture. He’s so close to outright hysteria because everyone is sitting around taking it. Sitting in front of our computers, posting on blogs, instead of doing something to stop these horrible things.
He was particularly horrified by those who have credentials and connections discussing this stuff, continually pointing it out, instead of acting to stop it.
So am I.
And what suggestions did he have for what people should DO to stop it? I would love some suggestions.
What is HE doing to stop it, besides doing hysterical rants on talk radio programs?
Gerecht’s writing is both dishonest and manipulative. The very first sentence you quoted is a fine example:
The popular neo-con accusation that “you have a pre-9/11 mindset” (and all it’s variations) rings hollow. Though I’m permanently scarred by 9/11 (those fuckers flew over my house to hit the WTC), a pre-9/11 mindset served us pretty well until a Republican sat in the Oval office. We had a robust economy, gas prices were much lower, intelligence services were not completely ignored and we weren’t mired in an extremely expensive, unjust war. Our country wasn’t yet ruled by idiots and madmen. Idiots and madmen who listen to the likes of Gerecht.
Reuel Marc Gerecht’s current positions as a fellow at the American Enterprise and as the Director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for the New American Century serve as a dead giveaway. These organizations uniformly specialize in myopic, strident, uber-conservative types who refuse to let the truth impede their pursuit of numerous reckless policies. Case in point: Gerecht is a key player among those who would have us attack Iran. ‘Nuff said.
AF
The math is quite simple.
War on terror=excuse to loot US treasurey with absolute legal impunity.
Next question?
I’m thinking that there is probably not a lot left in the so-called ‘Treasury’. It seems Russia, China and Japan are holding trillions of treasuries and at any time; they can collapse the whole thing. Dollar destructo, final sequence.
Just remembered this one. You’ll love this.
Hear that sucking sound? It’s a further demise of the Treasury. This is from early last week. Israel WANTS foreign aid to be paid in, get this; EUROS. At a $1.40 a Euro? Oh, poo. The U.S. dollar is no longer a viable currency. They want more! Looks like we’ll all have to learn Hebrew as well as Mandarin and Cantonese.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3689
If you like that, you’ll love this:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762
According to him, he talks to everyone in line at the grocery store, bank machine, etc.; he stuffs the postage paid return envelopes of his junk mail with pages of information about what’s really going on, leaves them in doctors’ and dentists’ waiting rooms; and goes to demonstrations. His point was that we all have to be out there in the world spreading the word to those kept ignorant by there tv sets and newspapers.
Plus, it’s clear to me that there is a whole population of professionals with the kind of credentials Senators and Members of Congress respect, who are the kind of people they can hold their heads up to quote, who could be camping in their offices to get this turned around.
Dan Rather was made to pay for reporting the truth, like Valerie Wilson was made to pay for getting in their way, and Scott Ritter’s integrity impugned badly when he started bucking their tide. THEY NEED A LOT OF LOUD COMPANY, not a bunch of silent or whispering former compatriots, who are trying not to draw that kind ire upon themselves. Enough of them remembering that the whole future is more important than their own safety, and we at last have our country back.
It’s really obvious that a million blog posts don’t even faze these fiends.
Right on Larry!
one point though
Maybe semantics but it seems to me that the Bush Administration hasn’t really talked a good game either. The game they talk sounds to me mostly like promoting fear and moral authority as opposed to causes and solutions.
How many police chiefs in the U.S. would take the tactics used by the U.S. against world terrorism, and publicly advocate the use of them against something like say, urban gang violence?
Oh-oh, speaking of the war on terror, Iceland has pulled its troop out of Iraq today. What will become of the Coalition of the Willing’s military response against terrorism?
What war on terrorism indeed. A must read/view here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18483.htm
… failure to create a coordinated counter terrorism strategy that employed the vast resources of the Federal Government.
They only have one strategy, War with Regime Change. To wit, John Bolton is in England right now saying that he seesno alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. “If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change … The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.”
They want to take the shortest route - war. Bad guys ergo get the bad guys. I’ve yet to hear any of them mention what happens after their new bombing war. So, they’re urgently pushing for another short-cut. Their last short-cut resulted in our longest war since our Revolution.
You’ve written a beautifully reasoned program to combat Terrorism and actually achieve results. Please keep it in your archives and bring it back out if we ever happen to have a government that runs on reason rather than short-sighted impulses…
Larry said:
Precisely. When counterterrorism has been effective, it was pursued using crime-fighting technologies. Investigate, get informants, set up, surprise your suspects, make arrests, convict.
A huge standing army doesn’t do much good.
Here’s what a huge standing army, with all its infrastructure does provide:
Jobs, lots of them. Billion and multimillion dollar contracts. Lots of them. Opportunity to develop and test new weapons.
Power to those who can order the army to be used for their purposes.
Political cover. Big wars and “support the troops” and Rosy the Riveter, and the Good War etc etc…all designed to distract the populace.
TELL: +27739967720
FAX; +27866187485
EMAIL excusive@mezanmi.com
http://www.exclusive.synthasite.com
We sale Brand new mobilephone, unlocked, laptops,Plasma T.V, with full accessories,and 2 years international
warranty from the Manufacturer.
Some of our price lists are listed below.
Nokia Aeon=350USD
Nokia N97=350usd
Nokia N96 16gb=330usd
Nokia N95=280usd
Nokia E90=265usd
Nokia N95 8gb=280usd
Eric…
Hopefully you can find the time to visit my site. I’ve learned so much from this blog….