Re: Natkin Doctrine

Thanks Michael, I think those are valuable parts of the debate, however, I believe if the government implemented these 7 points, it would have very little effect on terrorism. I think the "Natkin Doctrine" lays out more of a critique of the tactics of the administration's approach, rather than a strategy for fighting Al-Qaeda style Islamic fascism.

1. I agree that investing in Homeland Security is necessary, We are investing heavily already, and we need to do it better. However, for marginal investment, it's not a big win since you simply cannot secure the borders and prevent terrorism in a free country, even if you increase investment by 10X, you won't decrease the risk linearly.


2. I agree that reducing dependence on oil is a good idea, in fact, I think that a gas tax would be helpful for America in the long run. However, I think it will have no effect on terrorism. Terror-sponsoring nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia will have plenty of wealth forever. The demand for oil is only getting stronger, via China and India, so extricating the US from dependence on foreign oil won't help reduce Islamic terror funding. I don't see how our policies would change significantly in the mideast if Islamic terrorism continues to thrive - in other words, while we could potentially stop supporting Israel, we'd still be left with the problem of a world threatened by Islamic fascists as the major issue with middle east relations.


3. I'm fairly sure we operate exactly like this already - if we have good intelligence, we act on it. One of my main complaints on this blog is there are not good metrics on our successes. We have however, with cooperation of many other nations, foiled many terrorist plots world-wide, apprehended and killed significant numbers of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups leaders, and have a pretty good record of minimizing casualties to innocents.


4. Investing in cultural understanding is fine, but none of these programs will slow the current form of Islamic terrorism one bit - better cultural understanding of Islam is not enough - most of Islam is not supportive of terrorism, and the radical fascists who are will not be affected if we understand them better. We do need to address root causes in the Islamic countries that teach hate, oppress women, commit genocides and suffer under corrupt despotic rule. I don't think the examples you give of Israeli / Palestinian friendship programs are going to be effective (what is actually working in Israel this year is a hard power approach), and I don't think our current system of aid to countries like Egypt and the Phillipines is helpful. We give a lot of aid, but corruption prevents it from helping. Our approach has to be much more aggressive in that we need to change the way the governments work, and eliminate the appeal of fascism.


5. This is a point-of-view argument - that the administration is unilateral, and full of hubris. However, what success we've had to date has been international. Pakistan is our biggest success story, and we've captured terrorists in cooperation with France, Germany, Russia, Spain, in addition the 30 countries who are participating in Iraq. In Sudan, the US is driving the activist role; with Iran, the US is respecting the slow-going European negotiating teams. I don't think a different attitude would reduce the ability of terrorists to operate, primarily because a ton of cooperative anti-terrorist activity is happening today with nations all around the world. They cooperate for two reasons: they depend on the US, or they are just as affected by terrorism as we are.


6. The idea that the Iraq war is not related to terrorism is going to be the big point of contention for the rest of the presidential election. Again, it's strongly correlated with your political viewpoint, it's going to be hard to convince people to change. Here are the basis points for my argument that the war in Iraq is an important part of the war on terror.
   
   My assumptions:
   
   
   
   • Islamic terror is a network of terrorists fighting an ideological battle
   
   
   • Taking out Osama Bin Laden (assuming he's not already dead) would have very little effect on terrorist activity
   
   
   • Addressing root causes is an important long term goal
   
   
   • Fighting the concept of terror (i.e. the meme) requires a compelling countervision
   
   
   • Islamic Terror had a wide range of operation before 2001, I call it the terror crescent stretching from Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Phillipines) through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia, down through Egypt, the Arab Peninsula, and into North Africa (Libya, Sudan, Chad, Morroco)
   
   
   • Al-Qaeda thrives in countries where despotic oliogarchs allow Islamic Fundamentalists to thrive in exchange for relative stability in the overwhelmingly poor populations
   
   
   • Iraq had a more westernized society than most of the nations in the terror crescent
   
   
   • Saddam Hussein supported anti-western activities for decades, and was dedicated to developing Nuclear and Chemical weapons. He had used WMD previously
   
   
   
   What do these assumptions mean?
   
   
   
   • Attempting to create a free Iraq is a visionary project that fights the spread of terrorism by creating an example of an Islamic country that breaks away from despotic rule and institutes liberal reforms - women participating in government, democratic elections and increased economic prosperity across a wide range of the population
   
   
   • Geographically, Iraq is valuable terrority in the terror crescent. Progress in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is of significant long-term strategic value. It is a stage for encouraging reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia
   
   
   • Eliminating Saddam Hussein removed a major source of WMD availability for the next decade from terrorist hands
   
   
   • Iraq clarified the battle lines for other governments, including Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda has stepped up activity in Islamic countries, and governments have had to choose to cooperate in the fight against terror
   
   
   • Al-Qaeda and Islamic terror groups are spending significant amounts of resources planning attacks in Iraq to prevent democracy.
   
   
   • With significant help from Pakistan, our progress in Afghanistan, and more realization from the Saudi's that they cannot live together with Al-Qaeda, Iraq is a keystone. The major refuge for terrorists is now Iran -- we have reduced their range of freedom significantly. Leaving Saddam in power would not have achieved that.
   
   
   
   I absolutely agree with the part about prioritizing resource - but I disagree that Iraq is not part of the war on terror. The prioritizing point echoes one of my biggest problems with the current war on terror - lack of measures of progress. You can't prioritize unless you clearly state goals and decide on metrics. The Bush Doctrine is strong on strategy, and it's implementation has been lacking on tactical feedback.
   


7. This is a wishful point - hoping it won't be partisan, hoping people can rationally react to tragedy and terror. I think it's a burden of government leadership to try to do their best, and yet consistently deal with a horror in a resolute and strong way. The judging of whether it's being handled properly is a political affair, and I doubt the spectrum of beliefs about that is very relevant to actually preventing terrorism and improving the world situation.
   

In summary, the Natkin Doctrine is not a strategy for fighting terrorism so much as a critique of current tactics. A couple of the points (#1, #3), I'd contend are actually being done today. Points #2, #4, #5, #7 don't really affect the way the terrorists operate. Point #6 is a fundamental political question - is Iraq part of the war on terror? If the administration cannot make a good case that it is, then that's a major failure of the Bush Doctrine. As part of an approach to fighting terror, point #6 boils down to "Only do things that work." Of course, it's impossible to know what works and what doesn't until you do it.