Cole in Salon: "Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life"
My column is out in Salon.com on Tuesday, "Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life":
The White House hints at military action as the terror organization regroups in northern Pakistan and the Musharraf government begins to wobble."
Excerpt:
' not only has al-Qaida reconstituted itself in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, and not only did a sort of Pakistani Taliban make a play for control of some of the country's capital, but the Taliban allies of al-Qaida are resurgent in southern Afghanistan. In recent weeks they have pulled off destructive suicide bombings against NATO troops and Afghan civilians. On Monday, Taliban forces killed six NATO troops, four in a roadside bombing. On July 18 and July 19, they had kidnapped two Germans and 23 Koreans. One of the German hostages was found shot on Saturday. The presence of NATO forces and more than 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan has not stopped the Taliban from attempting to regain control of the Pashtun regions.
The resurgence of al-Qaida, and the usefulness of Bush's Iraq war as a recruiting tool, were further demonstrated by events in Europe. On July 21, Italian authorities announced the arrest of three Moroccans, whom they charged with running a terror-training program from a mosque and of being linked to al-Qaida. It is believed that their trainees were placed throughout the world, including in Iraq.
In an ideal world the United States could deal with such a threat by close cooperation with Italian counterterrorism officials. But the 2003 kidnapping of an Egyptian terror suspect named Abu Omar in Italy by Central Intelligence Agency operatives without Italian permission has roiled relations between the two countries. "
Read the whole thing.
Labels: al-Qaeda
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/24/2007 12:32:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
With respect to your positions about Younger George's 'incompetence,' it must be said that no one is really sure what his objectives have been, are, or will be. As R Bruce has been recently described in a new article (perhaps about the new biography on him), he was in conference with the King of Morocco at one point and the King had an interpreter who was sworn to secrecy on a Koran kept in a silver box. R Bruce was reported to have exclaimed something to the effect, 'I need one of those!'
The essence of what happens in this WH is dictated by secrecy, something to which everyone must swear as a sign of loyalty (on what, who knows). As we know, records, reports, and responses are as hard to obtain as Younger George's real TANG data. What is going on behind the scenes is hardly kept close and harder to wrest from the breast pockets of the keepers. The watchwords must be on the order of 'need to know,' with Younger George perhaps on the top of the list as one of those without much need, other than what must be told to him ... and as simply as possible.
That written, it might be further asserted that the strategy has nothing to do with fighting and defeating AlQaeda in the short term, knowing that - like the Taleban - AQ can reconstitute itself at will, much like the Resistance in France during WW2 or even the Nazis afterward. Some of the thinking might have to do with the Commies who stayed buried for years - if not decades - during the 'Cold War' until they became useful. Given this potential when considering adversaries, something like the 'War On Terror (WOT)' is to be sustained for the indefinite future.
As Younger George told the World after the NYC WTC assaults, he intended to 'smoke out' Usama bin Laden. The concept behind this is sort of like gophers who are able - like the jihadists - to bury themselves deep in the underground until such a time as they consider it safe to reemerge. Water hoses, exhaust fumes, bait, and other lethal means are not always successful, given that new generations will follow where the older ones may have failed and fallen.
Poking just at Afghanistan must be part of the plan, with finding out just how eager the jihadists might be to take on a new territory in Iraq. As Pakistan has always been close to the hearts and minds of the Islamicists, it stands to reason that therein is where the 'gophers' are hiding and breeding, needing some more 'smoking out' from time to time. Various kill zones have to be established where the religious fanatics can be brought out into the open and disposed of at will. Letting them sit idly in their safe havens or compounds might be detrimental to the mission in the long run, having to go after them again and again after the false peaces have been declared, falsely premised promises never kept.
All of this is speculation but considering R Bruce is a hunter, he might well know the process of scaring up game on various preserves, using dogs and beaters to stir up the bushes and brush in hopes of getting the birds to take flight, at which point he aims his guns, hopefully missing his partners. Even hitting a fellow hunter tells the rest of the World that he is willing to make some errors, taking casualties if need be. The point is to make sure that the quarry does not rest easy or remain undetected during the hunt. Employing anger, fear, and frustration is all part of the game, using the fight or flight responses to equal advantage.
A foreshortened effort is one that will usually require redundancies and repetitions when one long drive is better. The best way to solve the problems is to have the indigenous do their own dirty work. Of course, this mandates that citizen turn on citizen, much like the gossips and informants do in our society. Beyond the idle rumour-mongers, there is the old Gestapo/Saddam Hussein tactic of rewarding informers who will turn in even their parents in order to satisfy some higher authorities' demands. Yet, once the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakis, and others grow tired of the carnage, some will take on the role of providing details of suspicious characters in their midsts. The only way to make the Americans go away is help them and prop up their puppet governments.
It is a matter of how tired the people get and how much they would prefer to live with some sort of harmony in their societies. The key issue is 'when' this will happen. With the Americans' chief export of 'war,' it serves no purpose for the Administrations to undercut their own services and industries, especially when it will serve the American economy in the long run. The spoils will go to those who are able to be victorious, willing to hang in for the long haul.
Increasing the degree of mayhem and disorganisation in targetted countries only helps prevent those other nations from achieving any concentrated force to be aimed elsewhere. Ergo, Iraq is Balkanised, Afghanistan is pummeled, Syria threatened, Iran challenged, and Pakistan - with India on the East - might have to battle the Americans from the West. From this bubbling, explosive cauldron, it might be thought that the impurities can be separated out. This works both ways, depending on whether one is for the WOT or for the Islamic jihadists. In the end, even if the latter 'win,' they will be the ones - like the Taleban - who will be easily identified and targetted in the next period.
Again, speculation. But. It matters not -existentially - how long it will take. With six billion people for the World to support, even a few million casualties is a drop in the bucket, especially if those lost are deemed to be 'enemy combatants,' those who are politically and socially unnecessary to any country. It is all a matter of prioritising the 'good' people, differentiating them from the 'bad' ones who would be better off in their deities' realms. Of course, the Americans are always in the 'good' columns.
Like gophers or birds or information, the amount of each has to be limited in order to preserve the integrity of spaces in which they exist. Too much results in overpopulation crises, creating problems for those who understand the need for delicate balances in Nature or Society. Corresponding are the problems with religous fanatics who prefer to be outliers and outlaws in any society, those who must be killed before they grow, as Bob Marley once wailed.*
Sadly, this gopher hunt that Younger George has taken everyone on is beginning to make him resemble the bumbling Carl Spackler (played by Bill Murray in 'Caddyshack'). But, who knows? This might make a good flik in the end, even with the moonscapes made out of what should have been paradises. But, as Carl says, 'Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.'** We can only wonder what Younger George 'as got goin' for 'im, what the real links for 'im are. Too many seem to be missing!
* http://www.eric-clapton.co.uk/ecla/lyrics/i-shot-the-sheriff.html
** http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080487/quotes
Here are 2 cents of alternative reality:
Imagine that Gore had won the 200 Florida recount or the Supreme Court verdict. After 9/11, the Gore Administration pursuit of the Taliban and Osama in Afghanistan would have transpired about the same. Very likely, the kingpins would have escaped for the same reasons and mistakes. Supposing that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, there would still have been the awful conundrum whether to continue the widely evaded sanctions against Saddam or somehow normalize things with the tyrant, despite his abuses or allegations of incipient WMD development. The GOP would have assailed Gore's attempts at either no-win option. In 2007, Bill Kristol would be insulting the US Adminisration for failure to eliminate either Osama or Saddam, and add to this a failure to challenge Iran and Syria.
Yes, we would have been spared many deaths in Iraq, 100s or billions in expenses, and horrendous destruction, but events would still have conspired to render a very low approval rating of the president.
History is seldom fair. Some have tried to persuade Gore to run again, but he is probably smart enough not to run, seeing that the post 2008 president will face a tough row to hoe.
Odd though it may seem now, Bush may have had the luck of the draw. 30% still revere him, and another 30% may become nostalgic once they get brainwashed with the right-wing take on post 2008 problems. Conservative historians, facilitated by big endowments, are likely to portray him as some sort of intrepid, if overly-ambitious Polk or McKinley, or perhaps a loyal acolyte of (expect heavy use of the name) Churchill. They will portray the successor as a Pierce or Hoover, or perhaps (more heavy use of another name) a Chamberlain. Yes, allusions to the 1930s and 40s are rather redundant, creaky, half-witted, and false; but, unlike other slang, they somehow do not go out of style. Just now, Ken Burns is giving the public another dose of "good war" fables. Might a $10 million advance persuade him to make his next epic "W"? What will be the royalty cost to include Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" in the sound track?
That was a long setup to get to Carl.
Here's the deal: the guys who were going to profit from invading Iraq are making those profits, the rest of America and the world be damned. There is no profit in catching Osama. They need a boogey man to keep the hoi poloi scared, otherwise, they might demand something like representative democracy, or something even more radical.
And who the @#*% is R Bruce? Are you comparing W with Robert the Bruce of Scotland who challenged English rule?
ref : “Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life”
While in theory and constitutional law the President of the United States does presume the rôle and responsibilities of Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, in practice it is evident to everyone that Mr. Bush neither directs the military nor does he assume responsibility for direct and indirect consequences wrought by their operations.
To be sure, he himself appears to make little, if any distinction between legitimate war-making, and what most civilised peoples have throughout history considered to be war crimes.
And so, while history and scholarly historians ~ such as yourself ~ can certainly hold President Bush to account for the folly of this "war" = invasion sans cause and occupation sans raison, i submit that this Commander's legacy will be more akin to criminal negligence : a general failure to lead, rather than mis-leading his Generals to failure.
In that regard, Professor, at some point we must cease the pretense of blaming "war gone wrong" all on this AWOL commander, and scutinize as well not only this wasted American Presidency but also account for the spectacularly incompetent failure apparent of the U.S. Officer Corps.
iow, Mr. bush may be "incompetent," but his true crime as a commander is negligence; the U.S. Officer Corps is not simply negligent, thus : they are incompetent apparent as well as guily to the extent of war-criminality evident.
NY Times article dumbs down public for Bush. Here is Bush presenting his standard al-Qaeda Iraq/al-Qaeda 911 siamese twin claim, and here is the Times treating it like some run of the mill political dispute.
Instead of the Times providing some of the abundant contrary evidence to the siamese twins claim, they simply quote the diagreements by Democratic Senators. Just another political food fight.
If the President says something forcefully and with barely concealed anger, there must be some truth to it, even though there rarely is. If the Times takes such a superficial approach how can one criticise the 24/7 news channels for doing the same. (Maybe its just the Times trying to compete with the news channels by slithering down to their level.)
Your site is as much the problem as the current administration.
Post a Comment
<< Home