First Colin Powell states the obvious and sensible, and we are at least a bit relieved, at least somewhat calmed to know that there is one sane officer on the bridge. Then Cheney says something that sounds like he’s channeling Bat Boy, he’s repeating verbatim the words broadcast into his fillings.
Cheney is a life-long apparatchik, I doubt he even considers the degree of his corruption anymore, it is long since academic. But I have to wonder how Powell manages to shave without looking at himself in the mirror.
Yes. Before the fall of Baghdad, one of the successful engagements reported during the war was a joint U.S./Kurdish partisan raid on the al Qaida training camp in the north. It had been set up where the Iraqi army could not get to it without having U.S. warplanes take them out for encroaching on the Kurdish safe zone. At the time, a lot of papers were discovered in the HQ buildings and there were a few cries of “Now we’ll see the connection!” I would hope that the U.S. used whatever information it discovered to disrupt al Qaida plans for future operations, but no information has ever come forth linking al Qaida to Iraq or the Ba’athists.
Basically, the U.S. had no good way to attack the camp without having people accuse it of attacking Iraq, so it was left alone until the war started. However, it was more than just disingenuous of Colin Powell to claim that Iraq harbored the al Qaida camp, since it was under the protection of the USAF and RAF, not the Iraqi army.
Rune:We go after the Amish and Quaker terrorist organisations with equal vigour. And the Buddhist extremists.
Actually, the worst terrorists on the planet during the past few decades (in terms of number of casualties) have been the Hindu extremists in Sri Lanka, and we’ve never lifted a finger to “go after” them. Why not? Because their terrorism has been specifically about problems in their own country and hasn’t posed a threat to us. It’s irresponsible to expend our resources on fighting groups or regimes that aren’t a direct threat to us rather than concentrating on the ones that are. It’s just plain ignorant to argue that all Islamic terror groups are basically the same and therefore it doesn’t matter which specific one(s) we’re talking about in any given situation.
I suspect [Cheney] used the moniker Al Qaeda (as Putin does now) because it pushes some buttons. I don’t agree but he’s a politician. He bullshits. So what, I’ve heard worse.
If those are your standards for the validity of factual statements made by elected officials, that’s your business. Just don’t let me hear you complaining about “lies” from Clinton or Kerry or Edwards.
The leak about the investigation has occurred recenetly.
Not to trouble you too much, but if you’d bothered to take the time to read the 9-11 commission’s report, you’d know that joining al Qaeda entails an oth of fealty to UbL.
And in case you haven’t noticed, aQ have distinguished themselves quite remarkably from the “whole slate of terrorists organisations festering in the Middle East” by the attacks of 9-11.
Care to expound on this? I’d like to see what info you used to reach the conclusion that aQ has “ceased to exist in any meaningful way.”
I’d also like to know why you doubt that aQ ever existed in a a meaningful way.
This is apparently de facto true. But, IIRC, the fact that they’re still on the State Dept’s list of terrorist orgs makes supporting them somewhat less than legal. (Unless you’re like Richard Perle, a presidential defense advisor who says he is just too incompetent to realize that he was raising funds for a terrorist organisation in January 2004.)
Well, not really. There was an oath, certainly. But the commissions report did not suggest that this was some sort of litmus test for Al Qaeda affiliation. Specifically:
“The inner core of al Qaeda continued to be a hierarchical top-down group with defined positions, tasks, and salaries. Most but not all in this core swore fealty (or bayat) to Bin Ladin. Other operatives were committed to Bin Ladin or to his goals and would take assignments for him, but they did not swear bayat and maintained, or tried to maintain, some autonomy. A looser circle of adherents might give money to al Qaeda or train in its camps but remained essentially independent.Nevertheless, they constituted a potential resource for al Qaeda.”
Distinguished themselves in scale and ruthlessness, certainly. But did they really distinguish themselve in kind? What is the qualitative difference between the 9-11 attacks and the Lockerby attack, for instance?
It all depends on how one defines “qualitative.”
In any case, showing that they are able to “quantitatively” distinguish themselves in such a manner as they did seems significant enough on its own.
The thing is, we don’t go after all terrorists. Our government has no particular problem with harboring terrorists (as long as they are anti-Castro terrorists).
No problem. I probably owe you 3 or 4 for things you have clarified for me.
I agree. They certainly have distinguished themselves as the most “effctive”* terrorist organization in history. So, if you meant that AQ had distinguished itself as being the most important of the whole slate of terrorist organizations, then I agree with you. If you meant that they had distinguished themselves in some way that means we should ignore other similar (albeit less effective) groups then I have to disagree.
To me this is the central question governing the view of the war on terror as a criminal justice sort of action and the view which sees it more as a war. If you feel that the only purpose of the war on terror should be to hunt down and punish those responsible for specifica attacks on America or Americans, then AQ may be in a class by itself. Very few other organizations can claim responsibility for as many attacks on America. If, however, you see the war on terror as more of a war to end national sponsorship of international terror of all types, then AQ becomes simply the largest of a whole slate of terrorist organizatiions. And only 1 of a large number of targets.
Similarly, if you focus on reducing the number of nation states willing to support or even tolerate terrorist organizations, then I think it can be claimed that AQ has been dealt a significant blow. They no longer have any safe bases. I should say, that removing safe havens is by no means the only thing required to deal with AQ or any other terrorist threat. It is IMHO, however, a necessary step. I think we tend to focus on this aspect of the war on terror because it is the one which most involves the military and the militaries of our allies. There are other aspects of the war which are less visible and more important.
*I mean effective in this post as effective at attacking american’s or american interests. I put it in quotes because I acknowledge there are other measures by which AQ is not the most effective.
No, I don’t think that other terrorists groups should be ignored.
I agree with terrorist-fundraiser and national security & foreign policy advisor to the PotUS, Richard Perle, would probably also make the case that not all terrorist organisations should be treated the same (MeK, anyone?). Unlike Bush’s chosen advisor, I don’t advcate fund-raising or other support for terrorists.
Many terrorist groups have had a primarily regional focus. Something aQ’s reported to be trying to change. Why help?
This brings up triage. Even among the groups who seek to target the US there’re those who represent more of a danger than others. This is one of the critical fuck-ups of the Bush team re Iraq. Iraq was unlikely to initiate an attck on the US while others were “determined” to do so.
This is quite a lot to respond to.
I’m not of the opinion that the views you mention correspond well with how you’ve described them. My understanding was it was about what type of organisations are best suited to be the primary executors of the GWoT- infantry vs spies, not about whether the problem was to be treated symptomatically vs wholistically. Perhaps I’m wrong.
In any case, allow me to say that aQ should be distinguished from its fellows for a multitude of reasons, some of which I mentioned above. The attacks of 9-11 serve to distinguish it not only from the pov you mentioned (reactions to specific attacks), but more importantly, from a course-setting pov, the different levels of danger represented- the triage I mentioned earlier.
Let me note and specifically address this section: “…war to end national sponsorship of international terror of all types, then AQ becomes simply the largest of a whole slate of terrorist organizations.”
Which would still, require that a difference be drawn between aQ and other terrorist orgs. At least in as far as determining in which countries to drop the anti-terrorist bombs. And, as we cannot do everything at once, we’re still left with the issue of triage.
The investigative, financial and spy sides as well as the dipomatic, human relations aspects.
[/QUOTE]
This brings up triage. Even among the groups who seek to target the US there’re those who represent more of a danger than others. This is one of the critical fuck-ups of the Bush team re Iraq. Iraq was unlikely to initiate an attck on the US while others were “determined” to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Possibly. But the fact that they were unlikely to attack soon was not the only reason that they should be considered part of the War on Terror. The fact that we were in a slow shooting war with them already, he had demonstrated the willingness to use WMDs in the past, he had continually demonstrated an unwillingness to prove he no longer had them, and the fact that he was clearly a beligerant in the region add up to a serious case for action against him.
Triage is an important concept in this regard. If I am not mistaken, we had a significant investment in men and equipment in and around Iraq before the invasion. Triage does not mean simply attacking the worst problem regardless of current resource usage.
sorry, I was just musing.
I’m not sure I understand this. I was only trying to say in as unpartizan a way as possible that those who feel the war on terror is primarily a law enforcement action are correct from their point of view that AQ is in a different class than other bad actors in the MENA region. Those who feel that the War on Terror has a broader context, however, have a case that Iraq is not completely a distraction, or irrelevant. That was all I was trying to say. Perhaps my attempt to be non partisan lead to poor word choices on my part.
I think some people are more or less afraid of using the military. This might translate to favoring certain policies over others. But I’m not aware of any serious opinions which favor using only one (infantry or spies) and not the other. They differ IMHO more in the area of who is a target than how to hit them. Perhaps I am the one who is wrong.
I agree entirely. As I said in my first post on the topic, they are certainly quite distinguished in quantity. I’m not sure this difference, however, leads to very many differences in the quality of attacks. One could argue, for instance, that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. I don’t think one could seriously argue, however, that we should have put a couple hundred thousand troops on the ground there. I certainly don’t think one could argue that we sould have invaded Pakhistan in order to capture Bin Laden. Essentially, the difference in this instance is one of degrees rather than a wholesale change in policy. We still would have needed significant help from the Northern Alliance with all of its intendant restrictions. We still would have needed significant help from Pakhistan with all of the restrictions necessary to pull that off.
I agree entirely. I think we disagree whether or not Iraq should have been on the list, or at least how high up it should have been. But I agree entirely that different terrorist organizations need to be treated differently.
Yes, exactly. As well as the rebuilding “hearts and minds” aspects.
