Convictions and Kills

Here's a Michele Malkin post that wraps up some statistics on the number of Al-Qaeda members captured and killed since 9/11. Worth looking at, since it's very rare that anyone talks about metrics at all in the war on terror.

More Cultural Understanding

Lee Smith in Slate argues that understanding Arab culture is necessary to understand how Islamists and Arab-nationalists view each other? Is that important? Yes, since those groups are the two major political forces in the Middle East today.

Pakistan Pick Ups

Captain's Quarters provides analysis of related reports from the AFP and from the AP on captured Al-Qaeda personnel.

Somewhat frustrating is the fact that Pakistan is working hard to re-capture terrorists who were released from Guantanamo and who went straight back to the terror theaters.

From the AP article, an interesting statistic:

Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror, has arrested more than 600 al-Qaida suspects, but no senior figures have been caught in the border region.

I wonder where those suspects get sent if they are caught by Pakistan?

Or What?

"Senior diplomats from France, Britain and Germany will meet top Iranian officials in Vienna on Thursday to offer Tehran a final chance to halt uranium enrichment plans..."

If they don't guess what?

Diplomats in Vienna say most European states would back U.S. demands that Tehran be reported to the U.N. Security Council when the IAEA meets in November.

They are shaking in their boots, I'm sure...

PS. "At the London news conference with Straw, Fischer said that suspending uranium enrichment was something Iran had already promised the EU's "Big Three" in October 2003."

Afghan elections

The best in-person summary of the successful Afghan elections comes from oxblog's correspondent.

[Al-Qaeda's and the insurgents] failure [to disrupt the election] is a major blow to the credibility of the insurgency, and for all its flaws, this election is a heartening victory. The Afghans are rightly proud and excited; they deserve much praise for this imperfect but important step toward stable democratic government. I’ve also talked to Afghans who feel that the U.S. government deserves more credit than I’ve been inclined to offer.

A warning about Pakistan

Via Captain Ed, a foreboding article on Al-Qaeda's focus on Pakistan and Musharraf's tactics for fighting terror.

Incentives for Terror Attacks

Via Michele Catalano's blog, here are a couple of pages which list terror attacks on the US and on Israel.

Looking at the Israeli list (which is sobering), keep in mind that Saddam Hussein used to pay $25k to the families of suicide bombers, as did a charity fund set up by Saudia Arabia. Since that money flow has been stopped, I wonder if there's less incentive for poor Palestinian men and women to strap on bombs and explode themselves in Israeli pizza parlors?

Root Cause Progress

For my co-bloggers who may not believe that root causes are being addressed, and doubt that soft power is being used effectively, the WaPo reports (with some surpise) on some recent successes.

An interesting theory on Sudan

David Adesnik at oxblog has a quick post on why Russia, China and France are stalling the UN on Sudan. He says it's not because of oil, but rather:

My sense is that China and Russia oppose intervention in Sudan because their own national interest (and flagrant violation of their citizens' human rights) compels them to defend the notion that national sovereignty is inviolable.

What does Sudan have to do with terrorism? If things continue with the Arabs militias killing black Africans, it will be a bigger haven for terrorists than it is today.

Can you go back?

I think it's a shallow reading of the current approach to the war on terror that doesn't see many of the exact "soft-power" activities already taking place. Michael writes:

I simply can't envision that after some number of years of overthrowing some governments and bullying others, bombing wherever we see fit without international support, and attempting to install democratic governments where they have never existed, somehow we will reach a promised land of peace and security.

This summary is a caricature of my arguments about strategic doctrine, as well as a caricature of how the war on terror is being conducted today. No one is arguing that hard-power alone will work. Much more is happening on the soft-power front than you are acknowledging. What about:

• Elections in Afghanistan?
• The possibility of educational and governmental opportunities for women in Afghanistan and Iraq?
• An interim constitution in Iraq?

Furthermore it's a canard to call these activities unilateral. Beyond the countries participating in liberating Iraq, the War on Terror has involved Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, India, China, in specific cooperation, with impressive success at times. It's also a serious form of denial to not see the corruption that limits the effectiveness of institutions like the UN and complain that we bomb wherever we see fit without international support.

Most of all, though, the whole point of this blog is to determine if you really believe we are in a war on terror. If you don't think you are in a war, but rather a police action similar to countering drug-traffickers or prostitution, you won't accept any war behaviour. I'd contend that denying the need for a strategic hard-power aspect to a war on terror is a wishful hope that ignores a lot of evidence. I do know that we can't go back to the point where soft-power alone will stop or even slow Islamic terrorism. Check out Memri, read the Duelfer report and the 9/11 commission report. Read the writings and biographies of the Al-Qaeda leadership Zarqawi, Al-Zawahri, Bin Laden and the exhortations carried by the 9/11 hijackers.

After digesting that evidence, tell me more about how speeches to the UN, summits with France and Germany, negotiation with and continued support of Arab strongmen like Mubarak and Abdullah are going to prevent terror in the years ahead.

The struggle for a doctrine

A must-read article in the NYT Magazine, ostensibly a paean to Kerry. However, the sub-theme is the liberals search for an alternative to the Bush doctrine:

What Kerry still has not done is to articulate clearly a larger foreign-policy vision, his own overarching alternative to Bush's global war on terror.

The article makes clear that it isn't just Kerry who hasn't articulated an alternative view.

Inside liberal think-tanks, there are Democratic foreign-policy experts who are challenging some of Bush's most basic assumptions about the post-9/11 world -- including, most provocatively, the very idea that we are, in fact, in a war. But Kerry has tended to steer clear of this conversation, preferring to attack Bush for the way he is fighting terrorism rather than for the way in which he perceives and frames the threat itself.

The article helpfully attempts to crystallize this for Kerry. Suffice to say, if you believe that the UN, summits, diplomacy and sops to Arab strongmen are the way to reduce terrorism, this is the doctrine for you. A overly-simplistic view is presented of the current approach and on the differences between conservative views on the War on Terror and liberal views:

Fundamentally, Bush sees the war on terror as a military campaign, not simply to protect American lives but also to preserve and spread American values around the world; his liberal critics see it more as an ideological campaign, one that will turn back a tide of resentment toward Americans and thus limit the peril they face at home.

My critique is that people who believe that resentment is the motivating force behind Islamic terrorism haven't read or paid attention to what the terrorists are saying today (see the very first terror debate post for an example). Look at the terror that's occurred during the past 60 days -- Islamic sponsored terrorism: planes in Russia, schoolhouse in Beslan, Consulates in Indonesia, beheadings in Iraq, bombings in Egypt and Israel. The horse has left the barn - whatever "resentment" has engendered, we are well past the point where simply attempting to soothe it is going reduce Islamic fascism and terrorism.

Suddenly Iran!

Iran somehow has become a hot topic. Is it because Iran parliament begins push for resumption of uranium enrichment? Is it because Iran Says It Has Increased Missile Range? What about internal uprisings? Or maybe everyone is noticing because Iranian hardliners cancel embassy music concerts?

So now Iran is coming to the fore. Here's the question: will we look at them tactically or strategically. Michael Ledeen writes:

Like Afghanistan before it, Iraq is only one theater in a regional war. We were attacked by a network of terrorist organizations supported by several countries, of whom the most important were Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. President Bush's original analysis was correct, as was his strategy: We must not distinguish between the terrorists and their national supporters. Hence we need different strategies for different enemies, but we need to defeat all of them.

Here's what the terror debate is really about: Are you willing to defeat the terror supporters in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia?