Back in August I highlighted an op-ed that explored a strategy meant for the Cold War that could be applied usefully to our current War on Terrorism. The op-ed author was Nick Thompson from Wired's Danger Room and the Cold war strategy (featured in the popular X-Article) is now known tho be the work of George 'X' Kennan. I should reiterate here once again that this this op-ed, the article I'm going to mention briefly, this post or the post from August is advocating a "wait them out" strategy but rather a strategy that uses inherent weaknesses of extremist ideology against them rather than using policies that strengthen their ranks and confirm their propaganda.

This brings us to the 'return' of this policy prescription; this time in next months Foreign Affairs journal (via the WSJ). The author, the centrist Brookings Institutions senior US foreign policy wonk, Philip H. Gordon argues (much like Thompson and Kennan; summarized by WSJ's Robin Moroney)

...Islamic extremists will lose the way the U.S.S.R. did, with their ideology and tactics discredited and their erstwhile supporters deserting them. Mr. Gordon says this will occur as a result of disgust at Islamic militants’ use of violence against other Muslims, the economic failures of extreme Islamic regimes and a fear in the Islamic world, evidenced in polls, of having al Qaeda-led governments.
...
Focusing on completely eradicating terrorism rather than fostering its slow demise would drag the U.S. into precisely the costly wars abroad that Osama bin Laden wants the U.S. to fight. Mr. bin Laden and his ilk are unlikely to win in the long term in any case, says Mr. Gordon, but the war in Iraq will prolong the conflict as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda. The U.S. should instead focus on exploiting extremist Islam’s weak points as an ideology, using diplomacy, economic development and imprisoning terrorist leaders to bring about Islamic terrorism’s slow death.

Sound, rational, logical strategy the presidential contenders should consider and a market improvement to the neocon destabilization and paranoia campaign. Of course if your platform is running on the coattails of 9/11 then you might surround yourself with discredited pseudo-scholars. Right Mr. Giuliani?

Labels: al Qaeda, counter terrorism, foreign affairs, foreign policy, FP, Osama bin Laden, terrorism, UBL

On Sunday President Bush's homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend claimed that Osama bin Laden was "virtually impotent," on the run and in a cave. Similar conclusions have been made by Ann Coulter and president Bush.

Despite these assertions, highly placed government officials reaffirmed Monday that "Osama bin Laden remained the most dangerous terrorist threat to the United States." Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told a Senate committee that eliminating the threat of bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders as well as their sanctuary on the Afghan-Pakistan border the United States "number one priority."

Furthermore, the US focus on Iraq and the inability of Pakistan to confront al Qaeda and its allies has given bin Laden several advantages. According to U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials and experts, bin Laden has been able "to secure safe harbor in the tribal area of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, rebuild al Qaida's inner circle, train a new generation of jihadis and expand ties to Middle Eastern and North African terrorist groups." This space has allowed the propaganda wing of al Qaeda, the as-Sahab Media Institute, to increase its production output from 16 videos in 2005, to 74 so far in 2007. This rate has doubled from 1 video every 6 days in 2006 to "an average rate of one every three days or so" in 2007.

Baselessly discounting bin Laden's importance to the 'War on Terror' ignores the sober assessments of our top intelligence officials, provides leeway for an "impotent" terrorist leader and his organization to talk to the world and marks down the significance of the man who killed so many 6 years ago today.

Labels: al Qaeda, Bush, Osama bin Laden, terrorism

If your browser is open right now then you likely have at least one headline on your homepage or favorite website hinting at an alleged video from the still free Usama bin Laden (UBL). This video, if it comes out, will coincide with the 6^th anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on NY, DC and a failed attack which ended in a deadly plane crash in rural PA. Here are some thoughts on the rational of this event--if it does indeed happen, but still relevant if it doesn't--from the point of view of a man like UBL and his al Qaeda movement at two levels.

+ This is at one level, a propaganda ploy for the global jihadist movement.

+ For western audiences it has a very different motive. UBL benefits from our occupation of Iraq despite the lack of popularity of al Qaeda in Iraq. Our continued presence there validates his statements and fills his ranks. Therefore UBL's intent is to maintain the status quo there (much like US war supporters, but for different reasons). UBL knows how politics work in America and that his face on TV will cause the various noise machines to begin calling for a continued, unconditional presence in Iraq. He knows the current debate that is building steam in DC and nationwide regards the future of our presence there. He "knows" God gave him the gift of our occupation of Iraq for his continued war on humanity. This presence of ours in Iraq is supposedly to fight UBLs al Qaeda, at least partially. So UBL benefits from this in numerous ways: He keeps a major recruiting tool operational. He keeps targets close by and an active training ground functioning. He keeps his rational and rhetoric valid. And all the while, UBL keeps safe in Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever he is while the American eye (and military might) focuses on Iraq and the morass we're struggling with presently.

And if this video doesn't surface, the facts still remain.

You can thank the 'stay the course' crowd for that.

Labels: conservative, Iraq, Republican, terrorism, UBL

Those interested in the hunt for Usama bin Laden would be well served to read the Newsweek report on the ever-continuing hunt. Consider it a concise version of Woodward's "Bush at War" and Gary Berntsen's "Jawbreaker" with additional contemporary, reporting. Here are some snips.

This part would have made me laugh if it wasn't so serious and disappointing. Instead I just shook my head...

The Iraq War, meanwhile, has proved to be a black hole for the Americans, devouring men and material and absorbing the attention of the brass in Washington. In 2005, the CIA gave President Bush a secret slide show on the hunt for bin Laden. The president was taken aback by the small number of CIA case officers posted to Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Is that all there are?" the president asked, according to a former intelligence official, who declined to be identified discussing White House meetings. The CIA had already embarked on a "surge" of sorts, and doubled the number of officers in the field. But many were inexperienced and raw recruits, and they produced little improvement in "actionable" intelligence.

But it is encouraging to hear members of the military brain admitting these truisms

In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American). But by calling in airstrikes, the Americans also kill a lot of civilians, which breeds more jihadists. And according to Thomas Johnson, also at the Naval Postgraduate School, the military's continued fixation on body counts and kill ratios is irrelevant and even counterproductive. "When you kill a person it's a multiplication factor. It demands that all the male relatives join the fight."

I, of course, have been saying this for years.

Continuing...

Johnson, an Afghan expert, spent last February at Forward Operating Base Salerno near the Pakistan border, briefing commanders on the tribal custom of Pashtunwali. He says only about 5 percent of American troops in Afghanistan ever leave their bases—a statistic, he believes, that explains better than any other why Americans are struggling in the battle for intelligence. He says most soldiers in Afghanistan don't know simple phrases like "stop," "go," or "put your hands up." Americans continually make cultural blunders, like using canine units to search people's homes (dogs are considered unclean in Muslim culture). Meanwhile the Taliban works at winning the trust and confidence of villagers—or intimidating them. "They go into villages and say, 'The Americans have the watches but we have the time. We might not come back in a week or a year, but you bet your britches we'll eventually come back'," says Johnson.

If the White House wants to use historical "comparisons" this one should definitely be first of their list...

During the early days of the cold war, the old boys who ran the CIA began to reason that when it came to fighting against an underhanded foe in a battle for global survival, the rules of fair play they had learned as schoolboys no longer applied. If the communists fight dirty, we must, too, they rationalized—or freedom would perish. This ends-justifying-the-means rationale led to foolish and ultimately unsuccessful assassination plots and other dirty tricks that disgraced and demoralized the CIA when the agency's so-called Crown Jewels were revealed during Watergate. After 9/11, Bush administration officials, particularly Vice President Cheney, vowed to take the gloves off against Al Qaeda.

or maybe this on Bush's reeducation camps in his Vietnam-Iraq misrepresentation from last week

The danger now, says Arquilla, is that the longer the Iraq War goes on, the more skilled the new generations of jihadists will become. "They're getting re-educated," he says. "The first generation of Al Qaeda came through the [Afghan] camps. The second generation are those who've logged on [to Islamist Web sites]. The next generation will be those who have come through the crucible of Iraq. Eventually, their level of skill is going to be greater than the skill of the original generation."

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Cheney, counter terrorism, foreign policy, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, terrorism