George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

Interesting column from George Will in today's Washington post. It has some stuff about the Israel-Hezbollah war that I'll omit in deference to the official thread. But this part desereves seperate consideration:

Begin quote
The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible -- that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy -- and domestic politics -- unrealism.
End quote

(Link to full column here.)

It is indeed remarkable that after a major terrorist operation is, in fact, disrupted by Britsh intelligence and law enforcement, the administration chooses to pretend otherwise. Can there be any reason for this other than crass partisanship?

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

This was obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of the Middle East and how terrorism works. The only way the military was going to be significant in the War on Terror after Afganistan, which was the only country that sponsored a terrorist group that targeted America, was to occupy every country between Egypt and Pakistan and good chunks of Western Europe. And even then, the resistance movements that would crop up as a result of those operations would likely spawn a whole army of new terrorists and insurgents (as has happened in Iraq).

It's too bad we had to invade Iraq for the conservatives to figure this out (witness the UN effort in regard to Iran). Al-Qaeda lives in a shadowy world and we need shadowy people to find them while still upholding civil liberties.

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of the Middle East and how terrorism works. The only way the military was going to be significant in the War on Terror after Afganistan, which was the only country that sponsored a terrorist group that targeted America, was to occupy every country between Egypt and Pakistan and good chunks of Western Europe. And even then, the resistance movements that would crop up as a result of those operations would likely spawn a whole army of new terrorists and insurgents (as has happened in Iraq).

It's too bad we had to invade Iraq for the conservatives to figure this out (witness the UN effort in regard to Iran). Al-Qaeda lives in a shadowy world and we need shadowy people to find them while still upholding civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um.....correct me if I am wrong but wasn't this "law enforcement" strategy tried during the clinton years and Bush's first year? If I recall this great strategy let to the embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. There was also that little incident in NY that you may have forgotten about.

Also, correct me if I am wrong but has there been a terrorist attack in the US since the Bush Doctrine?

I am not saying Bush's strategy is correct. But I sure as hell wouldn't embrace a strategy that has already shown to be a COMPLETE failure.

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

1. The pace of Worldwide Al-Qaeda attacks has increased since 9-11 (London, Madrid, Bali etc.)

2. We went 10 years between Al-Qaeda attacks before 9-11 (WTC 1), so 5 years is no sign of success.

3. Its rediculous to say that the law enforcement strategy has been a failure. Here are just the success stories that have been 1. publicized and 2. that I remember:

Khalid Shak Mohammed (sp)
Millenium plot to attack LAX
Plot to attack Pacific Airliners
Lackwanna 6 (not personally sure if they actually were terrorists)
Plot to attack Sears Tower
Latest arrests in London
Plot to attack NYC tunnels

The law enforcement isn't the best way to handle terrorism, it is the only way in most circumstances.

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

One could pretty easily counter that law enforcement, in its state in the Clinton years, was too ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with the threats. Nowadays, with increased cooperation between branches of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and between governments, the people working to combat terror are much better off.

You are correct in saying that there have been no terrorist attacks since Bush started blowing things up. However, how many terrorist attacks have been halted? And of those, how many were stopped by military personnel? If my memory serves me, I think that ALL of the terror plots that were stopped (and made public) were done so by FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement personnel.

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying Bush's strategy is correct. But I sure as hell wouldn't embrace a strategy that has already shown to be a COMPLETE failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, like the Iraq war ?

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
One could pretty easily counter that law enforcement, in its state in the Clinton years, was too ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with the threats. Nowadays, with increased cooperation between branches of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and between governments, the people working to combat terror are much better off.

[/ QUOTE ]Maybe. But he had 8 years to get it right and I wouldn't so easily buy the "too ill equipt" argument and I would be inclined to believe that it was simply a failed strategy that deterred no one from attacking. If your argument is correct then it is incredibly damning comment on the Clinton administration because it was their job to be equipt and prepared.

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct in saying that there have been no terrorist attacks since Bush started blowing things up. However, how many terrorist attacks have been halted? And of those, how many were stopped by military personnel? If my memory serves me, I think that ALL of the terror plots that were stopped (and made public) were done so by FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement personnel.

[/ QUOTE ]I have no idea how many were stopped and by whom. We have no idea of the covert opps. that are taking place. We have no idea how much state sponsored terrorism was halted (or started). We have no idea of the effects of taking down the Taliban or Saddam's regime. Trying to measure by who caught who is a bad idea.

Also, as I said I am not saying Bush's strategy is correct. I am simply saying there there is some evidence that it is by the pure fact that we haven't been attacked in 5 years. It of course could be correlation instead of causation. However, I find it flawed logic on both sides to think it is one or the other to fit their world view.

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. Its rediculous to say that the law enforcement strategy has been a failure. Here are just the success stories that have been 1. publicized and 2. that I remember:

Khalid Shak Mohammed (sp)
Millenium plot to attack LAX
Plot to attack Pacific Airliners
Lackwanna 6 (not personally sure if they actually were terrorists)
Plot to attack Sears Tower
Latest arrests in London
Plot to attack NYC tunnels

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a failure if it is 99% effective. I dont think it makes sense to say, "Of course it is a successful strategy. Sure, it led to us getting our asses handed to us on 9/11. However, we did get a bunch of the bad guys and here is a list...."

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

Do you believe any solution is 99% effective? Do you believe that any solution besides law enforcement is 90% effective? I sure don't.

Re: George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism
 

It is not at all clear to me how, for example, invading and occupying Iraq in early 2001 (or even earlier) would have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

More fundamentally, it is mystifying that supporters of the Iraq war categorically reject, as Utah appears to in his posts, any role for "law enforcement" activities. Why? How does acknowledgement of the role of intelligence and law enforcment hurt the Iraq war or the "war on terror" of which these poeple believe the Iraq war is a part?