Saturday, March 03, 2007
The wider war
The terror war now extends to four continents -- running from Thailand and Indonesia to India and Pakistan, down the Horn of Africa to Somalia and Yemen and back up to Afghanistan, on to Iraq, Palestine/Israel, Lebanon, and thence to Europe and the United States. To restrict our national debate to Iraq and Afghanistan alone is to accept the failure of strategic vision that has plagued us from the war's earliest days.
We have decided to fight in one place at a time, secure that area, and then move on. That isn't good enough, because it gives our enemies the luxury of attacking us where, when and how they choose. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will ever have decent security so long as we only play defense; we have to attack our enemies when we wish, not respond to their initiatives, and their most important operational bases are outside Iraq and Afghanistan.
Word.
There is more, of which I will (probably) write later.
11 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sat Mar 03, 11:25:00 AM:
"national debate" aside, we are already operating in HOA and Indonesia. The press simply ignores what's going on there.
By 
, at
Sat Mar 03, 11:38:00 AM:
I also think that we need to do a better job of working with our allies in that part of the world. Say, India, for example. Inida is sort of the regional power of sorts with a reasonably capable security and intel apparatus, and is reasonably pro-American. I just dont see our Govt doing that yet, at the level it needs to be don yet.
As an immigrant, I still am amazed at how few Americns, even those who work in Washington DC are clueless of the world outside of the USA.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Mar 03, 01:21:00 PM:
"Word?"
Please,no black slang. It doesn't fit your fan base...
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Mar 03, 02:00:00 PM:
By , at
Sat Mar 03, 03:41:00 PM:
I don't have a sub to the WSJ, so I haven't read the whole article. But it sounds like Ledeen is basically arguing that
a) the terror war is everywhere, and
b) the US should be going out and attacking its enemies everywhere.
This is both a) impractical, and b) psychotic. He then argues that this approach will not just ensure security for the US, but for Iraq and Afghanistan. It could just be me, but isn't going out and attacking our enemies on a more pro-active basis exactly what brought insecurity to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or am I missing something that's later in the article? Genuinely interested to know.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Mar 03, 03:51:00 PM:
I just dont see our Govt doing that yet, at the level it needs to be don yet.
How do you know nothing is happening? Unless the NYT blows an op, anti terror ops tend to remain in the shadows.
There's 1,500 marines operating out of a base in Djibouti, but the MSM barely mentioned them until the AC-130's made a few runs in southern Somalia.
Anyone who relies on "the news" is getting about 1% of the story, maybe not even that.
By , at
Sat Mar 03, 04:48:00 PM:
"It could just be me, but isn't going out and attacking our enemies on a more pro-active basis exactly what brought insecurity to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or am I missing something that's later in the article? Genuinely interested to know."
This is neither impractical nor psychotic but an appreciation of what the conflict is.
It is a war of the Muslim peoples against the non-Muslim peoples.
Consider Pakistan and Nigeria, where Muslims reject POLIO VACCINES because they are "un-Islamic" and those who die or are paralyzed are "martyrs." THAT is the nature of the conflict. Fundamentally, the smaller and more connected world can have room for only modernism or Islam. Not both.
Muslims can and should be confronted everywhere they have some wealth, and leadership determined to act on jihad. We probably don't need to worry about Mauritania, a nation so isolated by poverty that few Muslims are even aware of the world beyond 10 miles. We do need to worry about places like Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, and Malaysia where wealthier Muslims have historically found jihadi organizational places. Kuala Lumpur was the site of a 9/11 Planning meeting (as was Spain). So too Somalia as Al Qaeda's most recent refuge, and the Sudan as Osama's former base.
Merkur you betray your naivete or hostility to America's security. Iraq and Afghanistan "secure and stable" under Saddam and the Taliban were a threat because Osama and other terrorists (such as Saddam's "honored guest" the last uncaught 1993 WTC bomber) could operate with impunity.
STABILITY IS NOT OUR FRIEND. While it might suck for the average Muslim, instability and the ability of US military forces to go in and kill terrorists with impunity acts as our greatest advantage. 9/11 happened because Osama found refuge in the Taliban's Afghanistan to plan, organize, and finance the plot. Plus enabling hostile regimes such as Iran (passing through the muscle hijackers without stamping their passports as reported by the 9/11 Commission) or Iraq (organizing the Kuala Lumpur planning meeting) or even Spain (mysterious trips by Atta to meet who?).
The US as the strongest society should promote instability and chaos in the Muslim world to give us the ability to kill terrorists at a moments notice. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if we had simply kicked down the doors and killed everyone in the first KSM and Bin Laden planning meeting?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Mar 03, 10:07:00 PM:
By , at
Sat Mar 03, 11:23:00 PM:
As FDR said THE ONLY THING WAS HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF
By , at
Sun Mar 04, 02:04:00 AM:
Dear Anonymous,
You scare the hell out of me.
"Consider Pakistan and Nigeria, where Muslims reject POLIO VACCINES because they are "un-Islamic" and those who die or are paralyzed are "martyrs." THAT is the nature of the conflict. Fundamentally, the smaller and more connected world can have room for only modernism or Islam. Not both."
The fact that, in most Muslim countries, polio vaccines are not rejected as "un-Islamic" and the fact that there are many non-Muslims who also reject vaccines (particularly in parts of Africa), would suggest that Islam is not the main factor in their decision. Perhaps education is more important in making progress in public health, rather than viewing public health as an ideological battleground?
"Muslims can and should be confronted everywhere they have some wealth, and leadership determined to act on jihad. We probably don't need to worry about Mauritania, a nation so isolated by poverty that few Muslims are even aware of the world beyond 10 miles. We do need to worry about places like Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, and Malaysia where wealthier Muslims have historically found jihadi organizational places. Kuala Lumpur was the site of a 9/11 Planning meeting (as was Spain). So too Somalia as Al Qaeda's most recent refuge, and the Sudan as Osama's former base."
I honestly don't think that you understand what you're talking about. I'll simply point out that the logical extension of your argument is that we should also promote "instability and chaos" in the US, since that is where the 9/11 terrorists received their flight training and presumably where they held most of the later planning meetings.
"Merkur you betray your naivete or hostility to America's security. Iraq and Afghanistan "secure and stable" under Saddam and the Taliban were a threat because Osama and other terrorists (such as Saddam's "honored guest" the last uncaught 1993 WTC bomber) could operate with impunity."
I hardly think that I betray any naivete. At no point in my post did I argue that Afghanistan or Iraq were not security threats; I was making the point that Ledeen's argument that invading them has hardly made them stable or secure.
"While it might suck for the average Muslim, instability and the ability of US military forces to go in and kill terrorists with impunity acts as our greatest advantage."
Your lack of regard for human life puts you in exactly the same camp as suicide bombers.
"The US as the strongest society should promote instability and chaos in the Muslim world to give us the ability to kill terrorists at a moments notice."
Do you seriously maintain this position even though it has been clearly demonstrated that failed states, subject to instability and chaos, are unequivocally the places where terrorism finds the most fertile soil for organisation?
"Imagine how many lives would have been saved if we had simply kicked down the doors and killed everyone in the first KSM and Bin Laden planning meeting?"
This is a strawman argument that I will not even bother to respond to. If you think that's how governments, their intelligence agencies or military forces actually work, then you live in a fantasy world.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Mar 04, 08:58:00 AM:
what Michael Ledeen wants >>> chaos
Chaos and instability aren't even in the same set. They're not comparable.
The Soviet Union was always unstable, but not chaotic.
Early America was largely chaotic, but not unstable.
