Excellent analysis of the War on Terror

[shanek]

Free Speech TV is showing an excellent analysis of the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and how the Bush Administration is going wrong. It's called "How - and How Not - To Fight Terrorism" and it's a talk given at the Independent Institute covering what the terrorists want, what the Bush Administration is doing, what they should be doing, etc. It's a bit dry, but it's chock full of good information!

It's coming on again tomorrow (8/16) at 1:30pm Eastern. If you can't tune in to FSTV, then you can read a transcript here or hear the audio here.

 

[Cylinder]

There was no doubt within the counterterrorism units of the CIA, both in the operations side and the analysis side, that the war in Iraq was going to undo almost all of the progress we had scored against bin Laden since 1996, and Sunni militancy generally.

0-0=??

 

[Ed]

0-0=??

nothin'
Stevie Wonder

 

[epepke]

That is quite interesting, and I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

It's been touched on, albeit lightly, in this thread, but I would really like to see some actual argument in favor of the notion that the US had made great strides against bin Laden since 1996.

What I remember from that time period were the bombings of some embassies and the Cole, the US bombing targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, which was widely criticized at the time, the hopes for a two-state solution in Palestine which fell apart in 2000, and an event in 2001 that involved a couple of skyscrapers and the Pentagon. That doesn't really scream "success" to me. Perhaps there were great strides, but I haven't seen that story told.

Another thing I remember is that, at first, bin Laden seemed largely to be ignoring the Palestinians, and they him. His big beef at first seemed to be the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Snide]

nothin'
Stevie Wonder

Billy Preston?

 

[Dan Beaird]

...It's been touched on, albeit lightly, in this thread, but I would really like to see some actual argument in favor of the notion that the US had made great strides against bin Laden since 1996.

The Taliban in Afghanistan was providing safe harbor to Al Qaeda. The Taliban has been removed from power and their forces and those of Al Qaeda scattered into remote regions where they have fewer opportunities for mischief. Pretty big stride right there don't you think?

What I remember from that time period were the bombings of some embassies and the Cole, the US bombing targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, which was widely criticized at the time, the hopes for a two-state solution in Palestine which fell apart in 2000, and an event in 2001 that involved a couple of skyscrapers and the Pentagon. That doesn't really scream "success" to me. Perhaps there were great strides, but I haven't seen that story told.

U.S. policy for many years was to effectively ignore terrorism publicly while working against it using law enforcement resources. This did a couple of important things: by not giving the terrorist acts a lot of attention they denied the terrorists the publicity they need for success. By treating the terrorists as criminals it sends the message that they are criminals and that they are not held as a significant threat by the government. A sophisticated way of saying ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away, but a tactic that does make some sense when fighting an enemy that relies upon publicity for success.

9/11 changed that policy. We now try to attack the sources of terror directly. Since 9/11 two government that sponsored terrorism have fallen and others have been given the message that it will not be tolerated. Al Qaeda has been marginalized as a significantly active terrorist group but still remains a powerful unifying figurehead to rally others. The evidence of Al Qaeda embracing Al Zarqawi in Iraq and the London bombers shows that they are trying to associate themselves with any terrorist group, while the groups themselves see recognition by Bin Laden as a sort of legitimization. So while it may look like we're fighting a global Al Qaeda structure what we really face is a small number of relatively independent cells that give lip service to Bin Laden as overall leader.

Another thing I remember is that, at first, bin Laden seemed largely to be ignoring the Palestinians, and they him. His big beef at first seemed to be the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Bin Laden jumps on whatever pony is going his way. Just like any other politician really.

 

[billydkid]

Actually

nothin'
Stevie Wonder

Actually, I don't think it was Stevie. I can't remember the guys name now. Damn it. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing - Right? Billy....Billy ....Billy something or other.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Actually

Actually, I don't think it was Stevie. I can't remember the guys name now. Damn it. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing - Right? Billy....Billy ....Billy something or other.

Billy Preston!!!

 

[billydkid]

Damn

Billy Preston?

Damn, should have read all the posts.

 

[epepke]

The Taliban in Afghanistan was providing safe harbor to Al Qaeda. The Taliban has been removed from power and their forces and those of Al Qaeda scattered into remote regions where they have fewer opportunities for mischief. Pretty big stride right there don't you think?

I would think so. It's not clear to me from the transcript that Scheuer is presenting the action in Afghanistan as one of the strides made. He only mentions Afghanistan as connected with the past actions of the Soviet Union and, in modern times, only in terms of being on bin Laden's "indictment sheet.

9/11 changed that policy. We now try to attack the sources of terror directly. Since 9/11 two government that sponsored terrorism have fallen and others have been given the message that it will not be tolerated.

I'm not sure which two governments you're referring to. I presume that one is Afghanistan, in spite of the Taliban's never having been recognized by the US, and that the other is Iraq.

I'm pretty clear that Scheuer would not consider Iraq a great stride in fighting al Qaeda, since that's what he mentions as undoing all that great progress.

So, at least one of those government-topplings (Iraq) is something that Sheuer considers bad or wrong. There's at least prima facie evidence that he considers the occupation of Afghanistan in the same light, and so far, no evidence that he doesn't.

In short, I'm wondering if Scheuer or anyone who substantially agrees with him can demonstrate that he has clothes. You can cut out paper-doll clothes, if you like, but that really doesn't address the question.