War on Terror Called Failure

[Don Vito Corleone]

From the Toronto Star:

Jun. 15, 2006. 02:00 PM
LYNDA HURST
FEATURE WRITER


Washington is failing to make progress in the global war on terror and the next 9/11-style attack is not a question of if, but when. That is the scathing conclusion of a survey of 100 leading American foreign-policy analysts.

In its first "Terrorism Index," released yesterday, the influential journal Foreign Policy found surprising consensus among the bipartisan experts.

Some 86 per cent of them said the world has grown more, not less, dangerous, despite President George W. Bush's claims that the U.S. is winning the war on terror.

The main reasons for the decline in security, they said, were the war in Iraq, the detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. policy towards Iran and U.S. energy policy.

The survey's participants included an ex-secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, along with prominent members of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment.

The majority served in previous administrations or in senior military ranks.

"When you strip away the politics, the experts, almost to a person, are very worried about the administration," says Joe Cirincione, vice-president of the Center for American Progress, the Washington think-tank which co-sponsored the survey.

"They think none of our front-line institutions is doing a good job and that Iraq has made the terror situation much worse."

The findings will be picked up immediately by politicians and policy-makers, he adds: "Just about any one of these people saying this would make news. When the opinions come together, it really carries weight."

Almost 80 per cent of the analysts said widespread rejection of radical Islamic ideologies is crucial if terrorism is to be eradicated, but that goal requires "a much higher emphasis on its non-military tools."

Across the board, they rated Washington's diplomatic efforts as abysmal, with a median score of 1.8 out of 10.

More than two-thirds said the United Nations and other multilateral institutions must be strengthened.

In the survey's accompanying report, Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said policy analysts have never been in such agreement.

"The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."

* * *

This is certainly hardly surprising, but one hopes it sounds a wake-up call to people who continue to buy into our foreign policy. I for one hope against hope that President Bush and his PNAC cronies are right about the "war on terror," but that looks like an increasingly remote possibility, and people who know far more than I about foreign policy seem to think it ain't happening.

 

[blackllotus]

It is mind-boggling to me that there have been TWO terrorist attacks on train systems in other countries, yet our train system still has absolutely no security. On the northeast corridor there are a few police guards but that is it. No metal detectors or anything to stop someone from bringing a bomb/weapon on board.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Iraq was all about revenge and greed on the part of the Bush administration and the friends of the Bush administration, anyone who thinks that going into Iraq has in any way made this a safer country seriously needs to have their head examined.

Unfortunately, even when people that know ALOT more than Bush and his partners about foreign policy come out and state their findings, his supporters will still defend his position, and I'll just wait patiently while someone responds to this with something about it being liberal rhetoric.

Just a reminder though, when they twist everything to make it the democrat's fault, that's not 'whining', that's thoughtful observation.

Until people start to ignore the smokescreen that is Gays, guns and God, this administration will continue to erode the very foundation of this country and the principles it was founded on.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would be curious to know who participated in this forum.

The survey's participants included an ex-secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, along with prominent members of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment.

A bit ambiguous in terms of establishing credentials.

That being said, I do agree with some of the articles talking points, most notably being that this council identified Saudi Arabia as the largest source of Islamic fundamentalism.

More than two-thirds said the United Nations and other multilateral institutions must be strengthened.

Agreed, although these think tanks fail to point out exactly how you stengthen these institutions...diplomacy only goes so far, and the UN currently lacks the teeth to enforce many of its resolutions.

Almost 80 per cent of the analysts said widespread rejection of radical Islamic ideologies is crucial if terrorism is to be eradicated, but that goal requires "a much higher emphasis on its non-military tools."

There is the immediate threat of Islamic fundamentalists, as evident in the 9/11 attacks...similarly there is the long term strategic goal of limiting the effectiveness of Al Quaida and similar groups in their ability to recruit new members.

The problem is that you have to engage the immediate threat, while minimizing its spread...diplomacy alone will not accomplish this...military threats and actions as executed by the Bush Administration are obviously not the solution either.

I have yet to hear anyone come up with a viable solution.

Iraq was all about revenge and greed on the part of the Bush administration and the friends of the Bush administration

Pure speculation.

 

[ScudRunner]

Just read Zarqawi's letters too Osama, the USA is winning, and A.Q. is losing.

 

[sandorski]

Didn't the House or Senate just pass a resolution declaring that "the US *will* win the WoT"? Who are you going to believe? "Experts" or a Resolution?

Too hard to choose.

 

[Genx87]

Does saying another 9-11 will happen eventually really require an expert to state this?

With the disarray on our borders I dont see how it wont happen.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Didn't the House or Senate just pass a resolution declaring that "the US *will* win the WoT"? Who are you going to believe? "Experts" or a Resolution?

Too hard to choose.

It's time to pass a resolution on something important, like every American being able to receive medical care, every American who wants a job to have a job, every American who wants their vote to count gets their vote to count, every American who wants to work hard and have a good life can do that. All of these things are at least as abstract as a resolution about beating the WoT, so why not?

 

[Aisengard]

That's great, unfortunately Al Queda does not = Terrorism. By instilling fear, worry, and forcing countries to elect warmongerers that make the situation even worse, Terrorism is winning. Until we can overcome fear, the terrorists will win.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ScudRunner
Just read Zarqawi's letters too Osama, the USA is winning, and A.Q. is losing.

:roll:

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: ScudRunner
Just read Zarqawi's letters too Osama, the USA is winning, and A.Q. is losing.

Which would be great if A.Q. was even really a major player in the Iraqi civil war...but they are not.

The civil war in Iraq is for religious faction control of the oil field revenues and political power resultant (and dependant) upon it. A.Q-in-Iraq is just a fscking sideshow - one of a great MANY militias, all of which line up to some Sunni or Sh'ia religious leader or another.

In the Somalia civil war, A.Q. sent in technical advisors, sent in it's troops for training, etc. Then WHAM, 10 years later, Islamic fundamentalists have defeated the war lords in a civil war. They are a patient bunch, used to using small forces and leveraging them over time, and letting others do much of the actual work when it suits them (as demonstrated in the letter found).

The upshot is that AQ-in-Iraq isn't really trying to "win" this war...they would just like to make it costly for the US, train some terrorists, and maybe help a favored, reliously conservative faction. The eventual "winner" will be which religious faction grabs the largest share of the territory that has the richest oil fields, AND controls access to shipping and pipelines. That has been the pattern of control in EVERY oil rich (or diamond, etc. rich) state. And THAT battle will be fought after the US has eventually withdrawn the bulk of our troops and declared "victory".

Future Shock

P.S. - ANOTHER one line comment - do you have any real thoughts? You just might get to 100 posts yet - it's only a few keystrokes away for someone as "insightful" as yourself...

 

[Lemon law]

To Future Shock,

Really glad you listed the Somalia civil war thing--I was listening to NPR a few days ago and they covered it in some detail---basically the person at NPR said that Bush&Co. had backed a coalition of war Lords
Washington hoped would be a counterbalance against Al-quida backed factions that were providing social services to the Somalie people--very recently, the US backed coalition of war lords were uterally defeated
in Mogadushue.

Bottom line, Bush backed the wrong horse----and now US policy in this region is set back at least a decade---and the US must start fresh--because anything we invested there is now totally gone. Big Al-Quida win.

No one can fault GWB for effort---but they seem to have a gift for ineptness that may well lose the overall war on terror.---and always seem to run afoul of the law of unintended consequences.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Future Shock,

Really glad you listed the Somalia civil war thing--I was listening to NPR a few days ago and they covered it in some detail---basically the person at NPR said that Bush&Co. had backed a coalition of war Lords
Washington hoped would be a counterbalance against Al-quida backed factions that were providing social services to the Somalie people--very recently, the US backed coalition of war lords were uterally defeated
in Mogadushue.

Bottom line, Bush backed the wrong horse----and now US policy in this region is set back at least a decade---and the US must start fresh--because anything we invested there is now totally gone. Big Al-Quida win.

No one can fault GWB for effort---but they seem to have a gift for ineptness that may well lose the overall war on terror.---and always seem to run afoul of the law of unintended consequences.

Yes, I was just reading the news from Somalia...what a fiasco.

And you seem to have hit it on the head regarding ineptness...no one is simply that unlucky.

I used to feel that way about Donald Rumsfeld...the poor guy has had the worst luck throughout his career...must be due for a win. Now, after further research and with overwhelming evidence, I must conclude that this man is inept. Dangerously so. He has probably done more damage to the strength and security of this nation than anyone in our history.

What a waste of opportunities.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx
George W. Bush - Larry the Cable Guy's president, not mine.

Only an Ewok can save this country from the evil oil barrons. Chief Chirpa 2008.

No (D) Democrats. No (R) Republicans. It's time to put an (A) behind your name, it's time to be an American.

Welcome to the United States of Bushmerica®

If the Democratic Party has no ideas, then it's okay that the Republican Party only has bad ones?

Until people start to ignore the smokescreen that is Gays, guns and God, this administration will continue to erode the very foundation of this country and the principles it was founded on.

Welcome to P&N :thumbsup:

 

[trenchfoot]

I used to feel that way about Donald Rumsfeld...the poor guy has had the worst luck throughout his career...must be due for a win. Now, after further research and with overwhelming evidence, I must conclude that this man is inept. Dangerously so. He has probably done more damage to the strength and security of this nation than anyone in our history.

imho, things are the way you describe for one simple reason: it's all a matter of what bush considered to be his highest priorities before he took office. in that pursuit, many factors that are commonly considered essential toward keeping our nation prosperous and healthy fell by the wayside as "stuff that'll take care of itself after i'm out'a here."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Future Shock,

Really glad you listed the Somalia civil war thing--I was listening to NPR a few days ago and they covered it in some detail---basically the person at NPR said that Bush&Co. had backed a coalition of war Lords
Washington hoped would be a counterbalance against Al-quida backed factions that were providing social services to the Somalie people--very recently, the US backed coalition of war lords were uterally defeated
in Mogadushue.

Bottom line, Bush backed the wrong horse----and now US policy in this region is set back at least a decade---and the US must start fresh--because anything we invested there is now totally gone. Big Al-Quida win.

No one can fault GWB for effort---but they seem to have a gift for ineptness that may well lose the overall war on terror.---and always seem to run afoul of the law of unintended consequences.

Yes, he is a disaster.

 

[Kadarin]

If the goal was to expand the power of the "Unitary Executive" at the expense of both checks and balances in the federal government, along with our civil liberties, then the War on Terror could probably be called a success up to this point.