Terror Debate

GooTube

2006-10-09T14:00:00.000-07:00

Everyone and their brother posted on Google buying YouTube.

To me it's a demonstration of the power of the consumer side of the internet.

The $1.65B selling price, all based on "Hey dude, look at this!"

And we ain't seen nothing yet. Imagine a DIGG clone that your Mom would use. One that wasn't just for 20-something Mac, Linux, left-wing geeks (god love 'em). One that wasn't the slowest site on the internet.

It would be huge. 20x the size of Digg.

That's gonna happen. And yes, it will be full of crap, but hey, to paraphrase Gecko:

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that crap -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Crap is right.

Crap works.

Crap clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

And crap -- you mark my words -- will not only save Google Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called Web 2.0.

Transformitive Power of Democracy

2005-02-07T08:56:00.000-08:00

Captain's Quarters sums it up much better than I could:

Democracy sets in motion a series of events that allow people to take pride in themselves and responsibility for their actions. It transforms people from powerless, rage-filled potential terrorists to involved citizens who can and will build better futures for themselves.

The CQ article als has the links to the WaPo article, and the story of an Iraqi hero who saved lives when he tackled a suicide bomber.

Riveting

2005-01-19T17:20:00.000-08:00

Thanks to a blog publishing a personal letter, the hairs on my neck stood up as I read what it's like to survive a car-bomb.

The smoke and confusion clear—not necessarily in that order. Then something strange happens, and it may have to do with the divine luck of non-casualty. You’re alive, others are alive, and the bad guys failed. More powerful than fear, your blood pumps with the joyousness of survival.

Swarm Warfare

2005-01-18T14:32:00.000-08:00

Interesting post on the "swarm" tactics of terrorists. Finishes with a very salient point about the world's population trends vis-a-vis religion.

... the National Intelligence Council pointed out that as aging secular centers of Europe continue into eclipse, the world ratio of believers to nonbelievers will begin to shift dramatically in favor of Christians and Muslims in the Third World. God, who Marx confidently predicted would soon be out of business, has turned the tables on him.

Guess what religion will be growing much larger in China and Nigeria? Perhaps not the one you think.

Economy rolling in the mideast

2005-01-14T10:04:00.000-08:00

Apparently, 2004 was a good year for the stock markets in the Mideast. This interesting summary of ecomonic performance presents an optimistic picture of economies climbing. Also interesting is the decades-long problems of income growth in the Arab countries:

The per capita income in Arab countries grew at an annual rate of 0.5% over the past two decades--less than half the global average. Despite vast natural resources, a good educational system, adequate skilled labor and plenty of capital, which has largely been exported from the region, the standard of living in the Arab East has declined relative to the rest of the world. With very high birthrates, the region's labor force is increasing by over 3% a year--the fastest rate in the world.

With 80 million people living in poverty and 15% to 20% unemployment rates, the urgency of economic growth and job creation to absorb the growing labor force is vital.

Good news

2004-12-30T09:11:00.000-08:00

A summary backed up with links of some things you may not realize.

America’s kids are less violent.
America is healthier.
America is cleaner.
The world is less violent.
The world is freer.
The world is less poor.
The world is healthier.
The world is getting cleaner.

Check out the article - written by a blogger - which uses the cool technique of providing a link to search results to back up its main points.

Demographics of Terrorists

2004-12-21T09:39:00.000-08:00

A psychologist looks at the backgrounds of 400 known terrorists. The demographics may surprise you, or maybe not, since many are the leaders at the top of the hierarchy.

Al Qaeda’s members are not the Palestinian fourteen-year- olds we see on the news, but join the jihad at the average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi- professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion. The natural sciences predominate. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, Zawahiri is a physician, Mohammed Atta was, of course, an architect; and a few members are military, such as Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, who is supposedly the head of the military committee.

His data on their backgrounds helps shed some light on how social networks sustain terror, and how the United States has avoided terror attacks since 2001.

In order to really sustain your motivation to do terrorism, you need the reinforcement of group dynamics. You need reinforcement from your family, your friends. This social movement was dependent on volunteers, and there are huge gaps worldwide on those volunteers. One of the gaps is the United States. This is one of two reasons we have not had a major terrorist operation in the United States since 9/11. The other is that we are far more vigilant. We have actually made coming to the U.S. far more difficult for potential terrorists since 2001.

He ends with a warning about networks, and how they are more difficult to combat.

So in 2004, Al Qaeda has new leadership. In a way today’s operatives are far more aggressive and senseless than the earlier leaders. The whole network is held together by the vision of creating the Salafi state. A fuzzy, idea-based network really requires an idea-based solution. The war of ideas is very important and this is one we haven’t really started to engage yet.

I would suggest, however that our ideavirus™ is freedom in Arabic countries, and is a viable alternative to the Salafists fascist revolutionary vision.

The Central Issue of Iraq

2004-12-20T09:46:00.000-08:00

Belmont Club nails it:

The central issue in Iraq is whether an Arab people can win their freedom in despite of the worst efforts of tyrannical and terrorist regimes to prevent it.

A Model of the UN

2004-12-20T09:39:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting model for understanding the UN.

Once it is understood that the United Nations is a trade association for the promotion of executive authority, its behavior becomes almost rational. The trade association extends professional courtesy to its members -- its cardinal rule is not to step on the toes of another executive.

The doings of trade associations are not usually beneficial to non-members, obviously.

Signs of Progress

2004-12-19T17:18:00.000-08:00

Captain's Quarters adds a lot of good analysis to a Washington Post article on Al Qaeda's strategy Saudi Arabia - deeming that it shows "AQ In Decline In Saudi Arabia".

Osama Changing Tactics

2004-12-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

Osama bin Laden's voice is getting a bit more desperate. In the past, he hasn't advocated attacking Saudi oil interests, ostensibly because that oil is something that would be restored to it's rightful owners if his revolution for the KSA succeeded. Apparently, with threats of more democratic reforms coming from other Saudi reformers, he's changed his mind.

A recording said to be by Osama bin Laden has called for the overthrow of Saudi Arabia's royal family and urged militant jihadists to attack oil installations in Iraq and the Gulf.

It's very interesting to use Google news and see how different papers headline this latest diatribe from Bin Laden. Here are some samples:

Boston Globe: "Bin Laden urges peaceful overthrow of Saudi monarchy"

Globe and Mail (Toronto): "New videotape by bin Laden warns Saudis of coming revolt"

NY Post: "OSAMA SPEWS NEW TAPE HATE"

Reuters: "Bin Laden Urges Fighters to Strike Oil Facilities"

Detroit Free-Press: "Terrorist message targets US-Saudi connections"

Xinhua, China: "Bin Laden" tape slams Saudi govt"

Reading from several interpretations of the transcript, one sees an extremist policy wonk who getting a bit frustrated, I think.

How Elections Work in Egypt

2004-12-14T15:16:00.000-08:00

In case you aren't up on the machinations of the Egyptian election process, it goes like this:

Hosni Mubarak wins.

However, some rather brave Egyptians are protesting the process. Do they think he's being too friendly with Israel lately?

Bin Laden Not Safe in Costa Rica

2004-12-14T14:45:00.000-08:00

Taxi driver shoots man dressed as Osama Bin Laden.

Arafat's Evanescent Legacy

2004-12-14T10:11:00.000-08:00

Captain's Quarters has a nice summary of how Palestinian presedential candidate Mahmoud Abbas' statement calling the Intifada "a mistake" is a positive sign for the future, and how it shows that some parts of the Palestinian leadership are moving away from the legacy of Arafat's terror policies.

Abbas would not have dared to give a contradictory policy statement like this to any newspaper, let alone a Western-based publication, while Arafat was alive. The statement appears to acknowledge the dead end towards which the old terrorist led the Palestinians over the past ten or more years.

Of course, who knows whether Abbas is ascendant in Palestinian politics, or even whether he really means what he says?

TSA Training Woes

2004-12-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

Via Ranting Profs. A union representative enumerates a litany of problems with training for airport screeners. He wants Congress to pay more attention.

This Would Be Funny

2004-12-06T17:25:00.000-08:00

If it wasn't a harbinger of massive religious war in Southeast Asia...

"Airdrop of paper 'birds of peace' is followed by bombings, shootings, and arson attacks."

Arab Journalists Question the CW

2004-12-02T16:21:00.000-08:00

Memri translates a set of articles commenting on Arab regimes' belief that the Iraqi government is illegitimate. These Arab commentators point out a bit of hypocrisy by the attendees of the November 2004 Sharm Al-Sheikh summit.

"It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation.

"[It is just as] outrageous that the Arab League, which represents the will of the regimes of 20 [Arab] countries from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf, wanted the Iraqi opposition to be invited to the Sharm Al-Sheikh conference, so as to ensure that all Iraq, with its entire political spectrum, would be in attendance to represent the Iraqi people. It matters not at all that other Arab oppositions have not been invited to any Arab League meeting or to its many summit conferences, throughout the history of the Arab peoples."

These are translations into English of columnist Salama Ni'mat, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat.

"What prevents some of the Arab regimes from holding free and genuine elections is their fear of the results, and nothing more – that is, their fear of the will of their peoples."

Questioning Conventional Wisdom

2004-12-02T08:56:00.000-08:00

Iranian journalist Amir Taheri recounts his political discussions during Ramadan, and questions the conventional wisdom about Israel/Palestine being the most important issue in Islam/Western relations.

There are no free elections or reliable opinion polls in the Arab world. So no one knows what the silent majority really thinks. The best one can do is rely on anecdotal evidence. On that basis, I came to believe that the Palestine-Israel issue was low down on the list of priorities for the man in the street but something approaching an obsession for the political, business, and intellectual elites.

He believes that the Palestine-Israel issue is the only safe issue for the elites to discuss, and it's the only Muslim concern for which there is any outside sympathy. However, could it be possible that Israel isn't the real issue?

Conventional wisdom also insists that the US is hated by Muslims because it is pro-Israel. That view is shared by most American officials posted to the Arab capitals. But is it not possible that the reverse is true – that Israel is hated because it is pro-American?

He then gives examples of oppression in other areas that goes unnoticed:

If Muslims hate the US because it backs Israel which, in turn, is oppressing Muslims in Palestine, then why don't other oppressed Muslims benefit from the same degree of solidarity

Here's a summary list:

Over 500 Muslims killed in clashes in Thailand this November ... The Arab and the Iranian press, however, either ignored the event or relegated it to inside pages. Note: needless to say it went basically un-reported by the Western press as well.

[Also not reported] ... Thailand is building a wall to cordon off almost two million Muslims in southern Thailand.

When Hindu nationalists demolished the Ayodhya Mosque, no one thought it necessary to inflame Muslim passions.

Muslim states have never supported Pakistan on Kashmir because ... Pakistan was a US ally in CENTO and SEATO

Nor has a single Muslim nation recognized the republic set up by Muslim Turks in northern Cyprus... because Turkey is a US ally

When the Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica 10 years ago, not a ripple disturbed the serene calm of Muslim opinion.

Last October the Muslim summit in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, gave a hero's welcome to Vladimir Putin, the man who has presided over the massacre of more Chechens than anyone in any other period in Russian history. Note that Putin didn't back any US action in Iraq at the time

The summary is interesting too:

Right now there are 22 active conflicts across the globe in which Muslims are involved. Most Muslims have not even heard of most of them because those conflicts do not provide excuses for fomenting hatred against the United States.

The article appeared in the Jerusalem Post, which has a login scheme, so I've linked it to the free version above.

Uh-oh, New Iran Kerfuffle

2004-11-30T23:02:00.000-08:00

Actually, I agree with the Iranians on this.

Kofi's Last Act

2004-11-30T19:47:00.000-08:00

The senator leading the investigation into the oil-for-food bribe system calls for Annan's resignation. Claudia Rossett has been the best source driving this out into the public. The scale and scope really have no parallel in history. If Annan had a shred of respect for the institution he'd realize that he must step down.

I'm hoping he's obstinate long enough for the world to realize that the UN needs total reformation.

A Sketch of Next for Israel / Palestine

2004-11-30T16:52:00.000-08:00

Count on Greg D. over at Belgravia Dispatch to put forward a reasonable view on what could happen with Rice in charge and Arafat dead and gone.

Well, very obviously, there is the fact that Arafat's departure from the scene allows for better conditions by which to kick-start the peace process. But what I'd really like to touch on here today is to toss out my two cents on how Condeleeza Rice might intelligently pursue a resucitation of the peace process with some legs. Not surprisingly, perhaps, I think (much like Arik Sharon desires) that we should stick to the roadmap--in the main. But, and likely unlike Sharon, I believe that just like Israel got to 'jump ahead' and reach informal understandings (ones, it should be noted, with the force of a Presidential declaration) back in April of 2004--Palestinians too (providing elections go off well and moderates are empowered) should get to fast-track forward on some final status issues too

Laugh it up, Furball

2004-11-30T10:28:00.000-08:00

Iran's spokesman gets giddy over the nuclear negotiation process. It is almost funny when you think about it...

Hassan Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear power.

He stressed its freeze in uranium enrichment was only temporary during talks with European countries.

Iran in solidarity with the rest of the world, isolating the US... Right...

The Rise of the Shiites

2004-11-26T18:20:00.000-08:00

Two good interpretations of the upcoming elections in Iraq, and what they mean to the Shiite majority. Easy to see why groups of Sunnis are proposing delays. Greg Djerejian at Belgravia Dispatch examines the historical significance from a policy maker point of view. Charles Krauthammer calls it a civil war, with mostly good implications.

Everyone knows the outcome will be a historic transfer of power to the Shiites (and, to some extent, the Kurds). We must make it clear that we will be there to support that new government. But we also have to make it clear that we are not there to lead the fight indefinitely. It is their civil war.

What You Missed on Thanksgiving

2004-11-26T17:36:00.000-08:00

Capture of Zarqawi's second-in-command in Iraq. Includes details of progress in the mop-up of Falluja, including finding of chemical weapons and huge caches of arms. Also, an interesting series on Muslim immigrants in Sweden.

There are some neighborhoods Swedish ambulance drivers will not go to without a police escort. Angry crowds have threatened them, telling them which patient to take and which ones to leave behind.

Similar conditions exist in spots in several European countries, including France.

Euro 3 Gettin' Played

2004-11-24T15:12:00.000-08:00

By Iran - Nuclear power to be. One week after announcing they would agree to do what they had agreed on several months before, Iran is toying with the Euro negotiators.

More on the Scheuer and the CIA

2004-11-23T10:55:00.000-08:00

Michael Scheuer makes a convincing case for more radical reform of the CIA. Not by his arguments, but by his self-contradictory statements in his published works and his recent appearance on television. Stephen Hayes exposes Scheuer's inconsistent views on Iraq and Bin Laden.

Also interesting to note that Scheuer claims he was being used as a tool by the CIA. From his appearance on Tim Russert's show:

And, indeed, once the book was published, it was misunderstood as an attack on President Bush. Mr. Tenet, who was in charge then, and his deputies let me speak about it as long as the book was misunderstood. When I turned the interviews around to show that it was a critique of people who have failed to serve the president well, whether it was Democratic or Republican, they shut me up.

By opening his mouth now, he's inadvertantly giving Porter Goss more ammo in his fight to clear out the agency. More fun here.

Via Cory Dauber's wrap up post on Scheuer.

The Dolphin View on Terror

2004-11-22T13:57:00.000-08:00

Did you know the Navy has been using dolphins to protect ships from mines, since the 60s, including the Vietnam war? These days, the dolphins are used by the Navy in the Arabian gulf, doing the same job. I'm surprised that animal protection groups don't raise a stink over this -- (quick googling) -- check that -- of course they have!

PS. The Pentagon also uses: "chickens, dogs, dolphins, pigeons, and sea lions to fight the war against Iraq"

How the CIA Views Bin Laden

2004-11-22T13:02:00.000-08:00

People asking for the reform of the CIA don't seem to really have the stomach for it. However, if Michael Scheuer's views are indicative, then it's no wonder that the CIA failed so miserably over the last 15 years in understanding terrorism. Scheuer, late of the CIA, recall, was the anonymous author of a book entitled Imperial Hubris - How the West is Losing the War on Terror. Here's some of the transcript from his appearance on Tim Russert's show this weekend.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Osama is still fully in control of al-Qaeda?

MR. SCHEUER: I think it's wishful thinking to think that he isn't, sir. The one example is the tremendous sophistication and spontaneity of his media machine. There has to be some command and control there. And to imagine that it doesn't--that he's unable to do it is just absolutely incorrect. He's really a remarkable man, a great man in many ways, without the connotation positive or negative. He's changed the course of history. You just have to try to take your fourth-graders' class to the White House visitors' center...

MR. RUSSERT: When you say "great man," people cringe.

MR. SCHEUER: Yes, sir. Absolutely they cringe, but a great man is someone--a great individual is someone who changes the course of history. And certainly in the last five or six years, America has changed dramatically in the way we behave, in the way we travel. Certainly he's bleeding us to death in terms of money. Look at the budget deficit now. Much of that goes against Osama bin Laden.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you see him as a very formidable enemy?

MR. SCHEUER: Tremendously formidable enemy, sir, an admirable man. If he was on our side, he would be dining at the White House. He would be a freedom fighter, a resistance fighter. It's--and again, that's not to praise him, but it is to say that until we take the measure of the man and the power of his words, we're very much going to be on the short end of the stick.

If this isn't bad enough, earlier in the show he claims the US should appease Bin Laden by weakening our support of Israel. He then admits that doing so wouldn't change Bin Laden's agenda, however. Let's get behind the idea of removing delusional appeasers like Scheuer from the CIA.

The Blogs on NoKo

2004-11-18T13:21:00.000-08:00

Something's happening there, what it is ain't exactly clear.

North Korea's situation - learn about it from blogs, days before you'll read anything in the major papers. Roger Simon is a good place to start - his comments have links to more details.

Looking at Google News, there are some southeast Asian based stories on Kim Jong-Il, but little coverage from the big guys.

Down with the Ship

2004-11-17T13:10:00.000-08:00

Claudia Rossett, who has led all reporting on the UN Oil for Food scam convincingly indicts Kofi Annan.

Once Mr. Annan became secretary-general, he lost little time in getting deeply involved with Oil for Food. In October 1997, just 10 months into the job, he transformed what had begun as an ad hoc, temporary relief measure into the Office of the Iraq Program, an entrenched U.N. department, which reported to him directly--and was eliminated only after the U.S.-led coalition, against Mr. Annan's wishes, deposed Saddam.

As Oil for Food was not only designed but expanded, embellished upon and run for more than six years under Mr. Annan's stewardship, it became not so much a supervisory operation, but a business deal with Saddam, in which the U.N. in effect provided money laundering services, the Secretariat collected a percentage fee from Saddam--and somewhere in there, between the kickbacks, surcharges, importation of oil equipment and smuggling out of oil, they jointly ran a storefront relief operation.

Read the whole thing. If you believe in the UN, you've got to hope that Annan is pushed out soon.

Original Thinkers Debate Terror

2004-11-15T22:14:00.000-08:00

A must-read "symposium" with a great set of contributors. They examine the basics of the terror war in a historical context, and cover more new ground on how to approach Islamist terror than anything I've seen in a while. Some samples below:

Clashing is what civilizations DO. It's their inherent mission. There is no example in history of adjacent civilizations cooperating constructively over an extended period.

What can be done to reduce the dangers? Intelligence should be greatly improved, Western counter propaganda is virtually non-existent, political use should be made of the mistakes of the terrorists. But democracies will find it exceedingly difficult to act effectively for reasons which need not be elaborated in detail. This will change only following terrorist attacks in which weapons of mass destruction are used and it is probably unwise if governments are moving too far ahead of public opinion.

During the last six years of my other life, as a Romanian intelligence general, the main task of the Soviet bloc espionage community was to transform Yasser Arafat’s war against Israel and its main supporter, the United States, into an armed doctrine of the whole Islamic world.

Democracy is not a panacea for several reasons:
You needn’t be a democracy to oppose terrorism – e.g. Morocco, Jordan, China, Russia.

In most Arab countries democracy will produce an Islamist state as it nearly did in Algeria.

In the Islamist Middle East, absent a background of civil liberties and religious freedom, democracy is not in the cards.

Adesnik en Fuego

2004-11-14T19:58:00.000-08:00

Bloggin' like a madman, David Adesnik at oxblog gives me a chuckle at the expense of the French.

If the French get chased out out of Cote D'Ivoire, maybe they can stop off in Iraq on the way home to share their expert advice about nation-building.

Just one in a sequence of very good posts.

"It's what the Europeans were looking for."

2004-11-14T11:28:00.000-08:00

While getting Iran to agree to suspending enrichment sounds good, it's not quite progress. Read the whole article, thru this passage:

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year but has repeatedly refused to stop other related activities such as reprocessing uranium or building centrifuges, insisting its program is intended purely for the production of fuel for nuclear power generation.

So they've negotiated back to where they were last year. Iran still has the tempo.

What the Internet Can Do

2004-11-12T22:50:00.000-08:00

Check out this tour-de-force round-up page on Falluja at Winds Of Change. It's stunning what people can do with the internet. Has anyone in history ever had access to so many primary sources, analysis, maps and real-time information?

The answer to that rhetorical question is simply "No".

Cognitive Difference

2004-11-12T17:58:00.000-08:00

Not Dissonance. The Iranian mullah-ocracy is so far from actually negotiating with Europe, that they really have a totally different way of thinking about things. When a regime wants to stall, there really are no carrots or sticks that will work.

"If the Europeans show wisdom and don't make excessive demands, I think the way is open and we can reach an agreement," said Rafsanjani, a senior parliamentary official. "If they resist, they will give in one day but at a higher price."
-- former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani

Face it, it's strongly in their national interest to develop nukes. They're gonna string out the IAEA, the EURO-3, and the UNSC until they're done. That's where the arrogance comes from.

Any Counter-Arguments?

2004-11-12T17:53:00.000-08:00

Now that Arafat is dead, there are hopes for progress in Israel / Palestine relations. Is there any evidence out there that Arab leaders truly support a 2-state solution? Arafat clearly didn't. Most Arab nations use the Israelis as scapegoats, and solving the Palestine issue would hurt their ability to do that.

Arafat's Failure

2004-11-09T21:49:00.000-08:00

Two views on Arafat. The New York Times: "The Man Who Refused to Say Yes" and the Wall St. Journal: "A Gangster With Politics". Both are worth reading while the world prepares to celebrate his death.

BTW, in honor of James Taranto, one must add: Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.

Terrorism Not Correlated to Poverty

2004-11-09T14:35:00.000-08:00

An associate professor at Harvard apparently has examined domestic and international terror incidents and has this to say about the data:

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Unfortunately, the article in the Harvard Gazette doesn't have a link to his research or the data.

Why the UN doesn't work

2004-11-06T08:04:00.000-08:00

Even if it weren't corrupt, the ability of the UN to solve international problems is non-existent. Iran gets backing from China. Economic interests win every time, and that means the UN can't solve any issue.

“There is no reason to send the issue to the Security Council,” Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said in a press conference with his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharazi.

“It would only make the issue more complicated and difficult to work out,” Li said, contradicting Washington by saying “the Iranian government is having a very positive attitude in its cooperation” with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Terrorism vs Gay Marriage

2004-11-06T07:56:00.000-08:00

The media rationalization that Bush primarily won due to voters concerned with "morals" is examined by Univ. of Virginia professior Paul Freedman at Slate. He believes, as do I, that terrorism was far more important.

So, if you want to understand why Bush was re-elected, stop obsessing about the morality gap and start looking at the terrorism gap.

Nuclear Blast Map

2004-11-04T10:46:00.000-08:00

At this rather sobering application of GIS mapping (combined with some marketing of a book on nuclear terror), you can type in a zip code and see how a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb would affect the surrounding area.

Convictions and Kills

2004-10-30T20:09:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-23T08:11:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-20T14:27:00.000-07:00

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?

2004-10-19T10:10:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-16T08:59:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-16T08:25:00.000-07:00

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

Incentives for Terror Attacks

2004-10-12T22:00:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-12T21:36:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-12T09:09:00.000-07:00

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?

2004-10-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Doctrinal affairs

2004-10-10T23:13:00.000-07:00

Jaymon, I appreciate your support for the Natkin Doctrine (which title I can only say with tongue in cheek of course). I'm writing this in the Amsterdam airport, on the way back from 2 weeks in Delhi, which is a great place to remind yourself of the incredible promise offered by the Western/capitalist way of life, how far it is from being a reality for much of the world, and how utterly different world views can co-exist and deserve respect.

JohnK, I guess it in some sense it comes down to gut instinct. You seem to honestly believe that a Bush-style war on terror is winnable, given certain conditions of public support. I don't. Bush's policy seems to appeal to a cowboy mentality that assumes we can solve our problems by coming in with guns blazing and sort out the consequences later. This has a tremendous appeal to a wide swath of voters of course.

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.

So in my view we simply must look for an alternative. The "Natkin Doctrine" is meant to be utilitarian, not utopian. It is intended to recognize that complex situations sometimes actually do require complex, multifaceted solutions. I don't mean for a second to suggest that it contains all the answers, only that if we actually want long term peace and security, we need need a more sophisticated approach.

ps. I was happy to see, the day after I wrote my "doctrine", that Kerry's terrorism plan shares many of the same ideas.

The struggle for a doctrine

2004-10-10T17:38:00.000-07:00

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.

2004-10-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

Response to refutation of Natkin Doctrine

Thanks for inviting me on board JohnK. I found the Natkin Doctrine compelling and wanted to make my first post around refuting the refutation, since I believe the original post does provide direct, tangible, and relevant input to the war on terrorism. The Natkin Doctrine is not only a critique of the current approach and administration, but provides an alternative strategy. Point by point once again....

1) I don't buy the argument that our money is more effectively spent on foreign wars vs. homeland security. The attacks of 9/11 could have been easily stopped. By this I mean, with proper intelligence and preventative measures, this attack could have been stopped much more cheaply than prosectuing a foreign war. All the airport security implemented so far, is a drop in the bucket compared to the war in Iraq. In addition, one could see an outcome where the war is providing net negative value to our security.

2) An aggressive stance on energy policy is important in the "war for the hearts and minds" of both our own citizens (who have to see their sons and fathers and husbands die to fight the wars of our leader's choosing) and the middle east. Many people in the U.S. were sceptical of our rationale for the Iraq war before it began and that number is only increasing the more information we get. It is not just the home front that needs reassurances. Imagine most of the Islamic world...what if you lived in Bagdad and your home was just destroyed by an american war plane...or maybe it wasn't directly the fault of the U.S. but instead your house was collateral damage because an insurgent was targeting the Americans who have just stationed themselves down your block. It doesn't help that we protect the oil ministry after the fall of bagdad, but don't stop looters of most other govt. facilities.

3) Relates to #1 above...not sure a ground war in iraq is better than spending some $'s on intelligence.

4) We will never win a war that doesn't include a very healthy dose of part 4 of the Natkin Doctrine. Do you really think the "visionary project" in iraq will work without this? If the answer is no, than "investing in cultural programs" is key and necessary to the war on terror....or the assumptions in #6 of the original refutation are wrong.

5) It is not just point of view! Polls of world opinion of the U.S. vary drastically now vs. just post-9/11 or prior to Bush adminstration. I'm not saying you make every decision based on public opinion, but to say this is "a point-of-view argument" is wrong.

6) It is highly unlikely that U.S. public opinion will have the patience for the "visionary project" in the war on the "terror crecent".

7) Lying to the public will mean #6 above will even be shorter.

Suddenly Iran!

2004-10-05T08:40:00.000-07:00

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?

Re: Natkin Doctrine

2004-09-24T22:15:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The world's largest Muslim country is a democracy

2004-09-24T11:55:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post editorial page (Via RantingProfs)

SIX YEARS AGO the dictator of a large Muslim country was overthrown, touching off days of looting and chaos in the capital. The new regime's promise of democracy was greeted skeptically: Many expected that ethnic divisions would tear the country apart, that Muslim parties would take power and try to impose Islamic rule, or that another strongman would soon take the place of the ousted ruler. But Indonesia has proved the pessimists wrong. This week it successfully staged its third elections of the year; 120 million of its people cast ballots, a turnout of 80 percent. The result was the direct election of a new president who promises to continue the consolidation of freedom in the world's fourth most populous country.

It took roughly six years for this success. Indonesia is still a hotbed for Al-Qaeda and Islamic fascists, however.

The Natkin Doctrine

2004-09-23T22:12:00.000-07:00

JohnK has challenged me (off the blog) to say what a progressive platform on terror would look like. Here's what I'd suggest. Note that I'm not saying that the left is currently living up to all of these items. We could be doing much better.

Spend aggresively on homeland security. Ante up the money it will really take to put the right technology in place to protect airports, seaports, public transportation, critical infrastructure, monuments, etc. Ante up the money it will really take to support state and local governments and especially first responders. Do the utmost to avoid compromising civil liberties in the process.
Invest aggresively in alternative energy research and infrastructure and efficiency so that in the long run our involvement in the Middle East can be on a voluntary basis rather than a critical national security priority, and we will be able to afford consistency in our policy towards dictatorial regimes.
When you have legitimate intelligence about real terrorists that are actively planning atrocities, stop them or kill them. In as surgical a manner as possible. Place the same value on any human life as we do on an American life.
Invest aggresively in programs that foster international education, understanding, peace and trade. In the long run, we can deter terrorists but we will never be able to fully stop them any more than a software company can fully stop determined hackers. The only long term solutions will come from within Islam. Here are some examples of creative programs for Israelis and Palestinians. We ought to be doing these same types things on a much larger scale between the US and all of the Muslim countries.
Stop acting with such hubris and unilateralism in international relations. Act as if we know we are one of many nations and cultures on the planet, all of whom have world views that we respect even if we see things differently.
All of these items will take many tens of billions of dollars to do right, so definitely do not waste money fighting wars that have little to do with stopping terrorism. Be realistic about cost/benefit analyses.
Tell the truth about what is being done, what needs to be done at what cost, and how safe we are. Assume people are smart and can understand complexity. Never use terrorism as an excuse to monger fear or further your political agendas. Work steadfastly to make this a non-partisan issue.

A week of progress

2004-09-23T20:03:00.000-07:00

Patrick Belton at oxblog has a nice summary of some good news, if you believe the war on Islamic Terrorism is a global affair. Excerpting a summary:

Nato has agreed to expand its involvement in Iraq

Syria has agreed to cooperate with the United States and Iraq

Musharaff has made an overture to Indian PM Singh for a final status agreement on Kashmir

Nigeria is attempting to create a role for itself in mobilising an African Union response to ending the genocide in western Sudan

American Marines have trained a counterterror force in Niger to operate against Al Qa'eda-linked militants in ungoverned swaths of the Sahara

Patrick supplies all the links.

All over the map

2004-09-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

A good interview with Peter Bergen - CNN's Al-Qaeda expert. A bit depressing in that he finds:

I'm not convinced that they have the capacity to do anything inside the United States. But, I would have given you the same answer on September 10, 2001. What's much more likely than an attack timed for the U.S. election, is a bomb going off in London, or Heathrow airport or something like that.

Yet he places a lot of blame on the Iraq war for energizing Al-Qaeda:

I would say that al-Qaeda was tremendously energized by the war in Iraq. ... Al-Qaeda was on the ropes, and it has given them another reason for existence.

But given a lot of the evidence he cites related to the capture the Al-Qaeda management structure, and the decreasing frequency of Al-Qaeda's direct involvement in attacks he mentions, I wonder how to judge this belief. There's simply no tote board or database which makes it easy to discern.

Update: Bergen wrote a rather positive piece in the NY Times on Afghanistan. Dan Drezner has point/counterpoint.

2004-09-23T09:22:00.000-07:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Social dynamics of terrorist groups

2004-09-23T09:04:00.000-07:00

A lot of people worry that fighting Islamic terrorism can only encourage more people to become terrorists. The typical argument is that by fighting in Iraq, we are only creating a larger population of terrorists. However, there is a difference in scale. For terrorists to train in groups requires implicit state support. In a post at Global Guerrillas, John Robb, focusing on the network aspect of terrorism (via Belmont Club), looks at the social dynamics of terrorist groups and the impact on their potential size.

you can have small, operationally secure terrorist groups, but you can't have large, operationally secure cells without a state sponsor.

I think this is right. Without state support (as was the case Afghanistan, and is the case in Iran or Syria), it's very hard for large-group training to take place.

Where's the card deck of terrorists?

2004-09-22T10:34:00.000-07:00

It's hard to find data on how many terrorist leaders have been killed or captured by the US and it's allies. If there's a list or graph out there that tracks the structure of Al Qaeda, and who's been captured or eliminated, I can't find it.

Deck of cards anyone? Here's an update on an Iraq-based Al-Qaeda leader we've apparently killed.

War on Terror: Homeland

2004-09-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

I recently listened to an interview with Steven Flynn on Fresh Air that seems relevant to JohnK's original question of whether we are winning the war on terror. He's a 20 year coast guard veteran and senior CFR fellow. He made the very interesting point that we are spending more every 3 days in Iraq then we have spent in the past 3 years for security at American ports, even though the government has said this is one of the most likely ways for Al Qaeda to attack us with WMD. He offered a very practical analysis of what it would take to have serious security for the world's 16-18 million shipping containers. His book, America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us from Terrorism looks like a good read. Here's his testimony before the Senate governmental affairs comnittee on the same subject.

Israel's success against terrorism

2004-09-20T11:53:00.001-07:00

This article on Israel's fight against terrorism raises the key questions about what it takes to win against terrorists.

That means an ability to endure criticism from abroad and even to risk international isolation, a willingness to define the war on terrorism as a total war, and a commitment to focus one's political agenda on winning, not on divisive or extraneous concerns. Fulfilling those conditions does not guarantee success. But it does make success possible — as Israel is, at great cost, showing the world.

Michael commented to me on Mark Helprin's article below that to do what Helprin suggests means we'd become like Israel. I don't think America is ready for that, and I wonder if something will happen that drives us to it.

Addressing the root causes

2004-09-16T13:17:00.000-07:00

Here's an article by Steven Stalinsky, the director of Memri - which translates Arab language news so English readers can better understand Arab viewpoints on terrorism. After detailing many ways in which Egyptian newspapers, academics and pop singers claim that 9/11 involved no Arabs, and was a plot by Jews and/or the US government, he summarizes:

Since September 11, 2001 many have asked "Why do they hate us?" The answer that is almost always overlooked is that the Arab media, along with schoolbooks and sermons, espouses never-ending incitement of and lies about America.

Maybe we should use the $3B in aid we send to Egypt annually for something different. Spend it on our own schools.

Who's winning?

2004-09-16T08:27:00.000-07:00

Strategy page has a perspective on the terror war after 3 years. Who is Winning After Three Years? Putting this together with the Helprin article below illustrates a major problem with the administration's approach War on Terror - they are not clearly defining the goals, and they are not articulating where we are succeeding and failing.

In America, when you ask who is winning the war on terror, 50% say the US and allies, 25% say the terrorists. I think the reason that 25% don't answer or don't know is because it's not clear what winning means. Progress is not reported very well, and lacks context. Perhaps this is because no one has bothered to outline the goals and metrics.

Or perhaps the populace really doesn't want to hear about it?

Finally, an alternative approach

2004-09-14T22:11:00.000-07:00

Mark Helprin, writing in the Claremont review of books

The aims of this war have been remarkably incoherent and elastic, their character improvised, their direction changed instantly upon encountering an obstacle. Whatever it was in the beginning, the war has become a very grand enterprise, with very limited resources, to transform the entire Islamic World into a group of peaceful democratic states that, relieved of the stress of not being peaceful democratic states, will cease to breed terrorism.

It may be surprising that he advocates a more comprehensive, better defined approach, requiring more resources and sacrifices.

To coerce and punish governments that support terrorism, until they eradicate it wherever they exercise authority. To open for operations any territory in which the terrorist enemy functions. To build and sustain the appropriate forces and then some as a margin of safety, so as to accomplish the foregoing and to deter the continuing development of terrorism. To mount on the same scale as the military effort, and with the same probity, the necessary civil defense. To reject the temptation to configure the defensive capabilities of the United States solely to the War on Terrorism, as this will simultaneously stimulate China's military development and insure that we are unprepared for it. These should be our aims in this war.

Does that sound different that what politicians are saying today? To me it sounds more committed and deeper. I think it counts as alternative.

Meme vs. Meme

2004-09-14T11:36:00.000-07:00

I don't disagree at all with your analysis that you fight the terror/fascism meme with the liberty/democracy meme. However, the huge problem is that when we fight the terror meme with hard power (or even with soft power sometimes) we actually only help the terror meme to grow more deeply entrenched. I know it is a well worn observation, but everytime we attack, we create martyrs that seem only to increase the number of people that hate us to the point that they are willing to die for the cause. So from a purely utilitarian point of view, is it actually clear that the use of hard power is getting us closer to a solution, not farther from it?

Terror vs Liberty

2004-09-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

Terrorism has been a "meme" long before meme was a Wired term. The point is to get asymmetrical coverage and awareness: to terrorize. Islamic fascism isn't new either, it's just another form of fascism, using terrorism as it's conveyance.

From the meme post below, we completely agree on the last point: how do you tell what's working, how do you fight an idea? I think the current model is to fight the terror meme with a "liberty meme". Democracy as meme. Going and attacking the source of the problem, with soft power in addition to hard power is definitely part of the current operational strategy.

I need some time to craft a good post on this, but I'm convinced that there is a geometry to this strategy. In other words, there is a crescent of terror spanning from southeast asia, through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and down into Saudi Arabia and Africa. Iraq is in the heart of this crescent.

You can look at Iraq in a lot of ways, but one major way is as a base from which to promote democracy and reform. It will work if we can leave the hard power phase, and stick with it using soft power.

The question is how committed are we to both parts of the war? Hard power and soft power. Terror vs. Liberty. Meme vs. Meme.

Terrorism as Meme

2004-09-09T11:20:00.000-07:00

Yes, the sheer number of terror attacks worldwide is phenomenal lately. One way of looking at it is as a meme. You have a lot of people out there that are desperate for self determination and/or feel that their way of life is threatened (more of a reactionary situation), and they are seeing that in some sense terror as a response is effective. At least you get some world attention. Clearly the idea is spreading, just as Malcom Gladwell wrote about suicide in Micronesia in The Tipping Point. See also Paul Marsden's social contagion research. (Have you noticed how beheading has "caught on" in Iraq after the first one was released on the web?).

So here's the basic thing: sure these situations are complex and each one has salient details, but it comes down to the fact that if a large group of people is perfectly willing, even happy, to die for a cause, it is extremely hard to stop them by conventional warfare. Jihad is an effective meme because it jumps from person to person, only getting stronger as "martyrs" are killed.

Politicians can carry on all they want about taking a hard line, rooting them out etc, but is there any evidence it is working? My contention is that you can only combat a meme with another meme, or by removing the conditions that make the first meme effective.

This week it's Jakarta

2004-09-09T10:11:00.000-07:00

Does anyone notice how often terrorists strike, worldwide? Or have Americans tuned it all out? How active is the Indonesian government in stopping attacks? Not very, apparently.

Arab-world Reaction

2004-09-08T08:30:00.000-07:00

Memri translates several editorials and comments on the Beslan terrorist attacks from Arab and Muslim papers.

The Terror Debate, again

2004-09-07T13:26:00.000-07:00

Greg Djerejian's blog (The Belgravia Dispatch) has an amazing framing of Putin's speech after the Beslan terror attacks. Russia is choosing sides in the debate. What's the debate about? How to go forward. Matt Ysglesias admits that there aren't any easy solutions.

At the same time, in the wake of this sort of outrage there will not only be no mood for concessions, but an amply justified fear that such concessions would only encourage further attacks and a further escalation of demands. I don't see any way out for Russian policymakers nor any particularly good options for US policymakers.

The media and Beslan

2004-09-07T09:18:00.000-07:00

The WaPo covers Beslan. Cori Dauber points out that the media doesn't give you the meaning like the blogosphere can.

Constructive Engagement in Chechnya?

2004-09-07T09:09:00.000-07:00

Here's a "constructive engagement" approach that may be the best option for Chechnya. In a global war on terror, perhaps this type of constructive engagement is a key to repairing broken nations that get infected with Al-Qaeda / Wahhabism.

Al Qaeda and Chechnya

2004-09-07T08:35:00.000-07:00

A must-read summary at Winds of Change. A key point:

However, I should point out that Basayev's ambitions extend far beyond just Chechen independence, so everybody saying that a political solution to the Chechen war or Russian withdrawl from the region is going to solve the issue is going to be sorely disappointed.

Russian Kids and Grandkids

2004-09-03T11:06:00.000-07:00

How to explain the tragedy and horror of a terrorist attack against a school? I don't care what motivates the terrorists, but it is important to understand who sponsors this.

Just reading some of the headlines is stunning:


Al-Qaeda Financed Seizure of Russian Hostages - Report

79 Hostage Casualties Identified

646 Wounded Hospitalized in Beslan

Hostage-Takers Use Scores of Children for Live Shield

Arab Mercenaries Identified among Hostage-Takers

More than 150 Killed in Hostage Crisis Aftermath - Report

100 Confirmed Dead in Beslan School

Militant Escapees Flee with Hostages

Just can't let go

2004-09-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

My simple answer is that there never are reasonable compromises when it comes to nationalism and religion. Natural resources, ports, religion can't be comprised away, in general. Israel is one example.

At the grand level, nationalistic groups have been breaking away from larger states - see Yugoslavia for a violent example, and the Soviet Union for less dramatic examples. I think it's "cycle of history" stuff - groups get together under dictators, or to protect themselves from foreigners, and then live together for a while until the fight to separate.

Looking at recent history, Soviet communism and Chinese communism see to be at the center of the latest cycle.

Let 'em go?

2004-09-02T09:01:00.000-07:00

Here's a question that I've thought about ever since I was a child. If you have a large, geographically contiguous group of people that really doesn't want to be part of your country, why not just let them go? Chechens, Ingushetians, Kurds, Kashmiris, Chiapans and so on. I understand that there are issues of natural resources, access to ports and so on, as well as just the pain of giving up power and territory. But in the long run wouldn't you be better off accepting that a group wants its own sovereignty, negotiating a fair settlement and moving on? (Of course I'm not saying for a second that the desire to secede justifies terror as a tactic).

A day of terror

2004-09-01T13:50:00.000-07:00

Summary of the day's events at: Belmont Club
How relevant will this be to Americans?

News via Blogs

2004-09-01T13:42:00.000-07:00

Television news is obsolete. Here's proof:

A blogger translates Russian coverage of terrorists seizing hundreds of school children.

Unclear or Nuclear?

2004-09-01T13:16:00.000-07:00

Two articles on the WaPo website:
Evidence on Iran Called Unclear
and (AP bylined)
Iran Announces Plans to Turn Uranium into Nuclear Weapons Substance
From the second article:

The issue of enrichment is extremely sensitive as the international community tries to determine if Iran is using its nuclear program for peaceful purposes only, as Tehran insists, or trying to make weapons.
...
Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment program last year in an effort to build international trust. But that commitment eroded over the subsequent months, and in July, Iran confirmed reports that it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges.

Recall that Iran is not lacking for energy, since it's the second biggest producer in OPEC.

Chechen Terror

2004-09-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

I wonder how much Chechen terrorism is connected with Al-Qaeda, or is simply nationalist? Perhaps it's both. In any case, this list of Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia this year shows 15 attacks and at least 230 people dead.

Next Steps with Iran

2004-08-31T11:01:00.000-07:00

Assuming the current multi-lateral negotiations fail, which appears very likely, what are the options with Iran?

Give them nuclear fuel in exchange for more monitoring

"Heavy sanctions"

Do nothing

Encourage internal upheaval by supporting Iranian reformers/revolutionaries

Regime change a la Iraq

Not a lot of great choices currently. North Korea exploited choices 1,2 and 3 above to get where they are today. I don't think current policy is against negotiation with Iran, however, to be pragmatic, you have an alternative approach when negotiations won't work.

This spectrum of choices illustrates the difference between stability-oriented "realism" and the Bush doctrine. The ex-state department authors of the Foreign Affairs article you cited are classical stability-promoting realists. The summary of the article is that multilateral negotiations are good because the result has been stability even though North Korea flouted agreements and nuclear-fuel bargains made throughout the 90's. However, North Korea is not the state-sponsor of terrorism that Iran is.

The Bush doctrine promotes freedom as the driving factor in fighting terrorism and increasing safety, and implies that stability as a goal is not enough. It's not at all clear how the US can engender free societies in places like Iran, but nuclear proliferation in terrorism-sponsoring states is a good reason to think about how to do that.

Constructive engagement?

2004-08-31T07:50:00.000-07:00

(Whoops, yes, I skimmed the article incorrectly, is is $80 M in 2003. Still not good PR for Cheney.)

I think the current trend is to avoid appearing to negotiate with the, um, Axis of Evil. Supposedly because we don't want to reward bad behavior. Which definitely lends credence to the idea that international relations are conducted on the level of 3 year olds. It isn't clear to me how talking with a country is a reward.

I think we need to be willing to go forward with negotiations with Iran and anyone else, as long as we are negotiating with someone who is in a position to deliver and/or experience consequences if they don't. (By consequences I don't generally mean being blasted into oblivion unless absolutely necessary).

Iraq, not Iran

2004-08-30T22:57:00.000-07:00

As I read the article, Halliburton "could eventually" do $18B of business in Iraq. Iran was apparently $80M in 2003. So, no I don't think that's the conspiracy behind the quiet outlook on Iran. It's simply that politicians know that most Americans don't really want to hear about Iran at this point, even if they are the biggest source of terror money and terrorist backers for 2004.

Of course, Kerry's team bringing it up doesn't seem like a big win, since they are basically proposing giving nuclear assistance to that same regime. Odd.

Re: Iran

2004-08-30T17:19:00.000-07:00

I wonder if the reason that Bush is fairly silent on Iran is that it is going to be hard to explain how his VP's company is doing $18 billion dollars worth of business with them.

John Walker Lindh

2004-08-30T16:07:00.000-07:00

Presumably one of the key pieces in a serious war on terror would be Infiltrating Al Qaeda. If that is really so hard, why could John Walker Lindh do it readily? He even had face to face meetings with Bin Laden.

My basic POV on terror

2004-08-30T15:24:00.000-07:00

My basic POV is that yes of course we need both short-scale proactive and reactive responses to terrorism. We need to be infiltrating cells, tightening up security, stopping the flow of money, hunting down known terrorist organizations, etc. I'd say the bush admin gets a D on that pre 911 and maybe a C+ or even a B post 911. However I see huge problems with our current strategy.

First, clearly all that stuff takes a lot of money. And instead we've spent maybe $130 billion on the war in Irag, enough to pay for about 3 million full ride college scholarships. Not to mention the lives lost on both sides. This for a war that has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. I don't think Bush seriously thought Iraq had much to do with terror, but even if he did it was a terrible return on investment for your counterterrorism dollar.

Second, we need to get much more serious and realistic about what it will take to change the big picture over an multi-decade time frame. I have to think there are many more creative things you could do with that kind of dough that would build long term trust in the Muslim world and help democracy take root from within, like it did in Eastern Europe. Our current policies seem to be leading us into a grim cycle of terror/war not so different though on a larger scale than Israel/Palestine.

What about Iran?

2004-08-30T09:11:00.000-07:00

No one wants to see Iran with nuclear weapons:

A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability - John Edwards

Edwards wants to open relations with Iran and is "more explicit in suggesting the Kerry administration would actively try to reach an agreement with the Iranians." The Europeans have been negotiating with Teheran for 6 months, and have not made progress. Bush has been pretty quiet on the Iran question, letting the negotiation process continue, since he's not prepared to commit the US to anything more during the election. Kerry has proposed deals on nuclear fuel, or else "heavy sanctions".

Let's hope that someone pursues the harder questions on Iran during the rest of the election.

What are the metrics?

2004-08-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

Who knows what the yardstick is for how well we are doing in the war on terror?
You'd think it'd be easy to find news articles which discussed how we are doing. It's not that easy. Here are the few I found which mention any kind of metrics:

BBC - Winning the war on terror

Rumsfeld's leaked memo says: "We lack metrics"

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

When searching for articles on metrics, you realize that many journalists view the term "metrics" with suspicion, since it reminds them of the Vietnam war and McNamara's metric driven approach.
However, with the current political environment, it's impossible to have a rational discussion about how we are doing against terrorism without some kind of yardstick. Perhaps metrics is a business term that scares people, but something is needed beyond partisan rhetoric.

Israeli Homeland Security Successes

2004-08-25T21:30:00.000-07:00

Should we look at Israel's approach as a successful model for handling homeland security? According to nationmaster.com 177 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks in 2003

This graph shows deaths on both sides since the Intifada began - fascinating, but sobering. Clearly 2004 is turning out better for Israel than 2003.

Strategypage (August 17) cites that only 24 Israelis have died this year as a result of Palestinian suicide bomb attacks. The key techniques in reducing suicide bombings:

The Israelis used a combination of better intelligence gathering, special commando units for operating inside Palestinian territory and better security at the border and inside Israel. In other words, the Israelis set up multiple defenses against suicide bombers.

Obviously the differences in dealing with terrorism in your homeland versus fighting a global network abroad are many, but Israels multi-pronged approach is a good model for homeland security.

Comparing Approaches

2004-08-25T15:04:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer's speech on Democratic Realism compares what he calls "liberal internationalism" to "democratic realism". Those names are basically proxies for the Kerry approach and the neo-conservative Bush doctrine listed below.

Kerry's Terrorism Plan

2004-08-25T11:57:00.000-07:00

What is the Kerry plan for the war on terror, and is it different from the Bush Doctrine currently in place? From the Kerry website:

Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances

"we need to build real and enduring alliances."

"... offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq..."

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats

"add 40,000 active-duty Army troops"

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal

"...make the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets"

"We will launch a 'name and shame' campaign against those that are financing terror." (specifically mentioning Saudi Arabia)

"Create a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of [WMD]"

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil

"embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future"

Clarifying an important difference:
In a conference call with reporters before the speech, Kerry foreign policy advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said those remarks were not meant to embrace Bush's doctrine of launching preemptive attacks against states the U.S. views as a threat.

Pakistan's progress

2004-08-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

Pakistan has had an impressive run of success in catching terrorists lately. They are publicizing a most-wanted list in major newspapers along with rewards for information leading to capture.

For more on the real-politik in Pakistan, see this post on Afghanistan's and Pakistan's election planning.

Four Pillars of the Bush Doctrine

2004-08-24T16:07:00.000-07:00

Norman Podhoretz lays out the "Bush Doctrine". The argument here is that we are in a large scale, global war on terror. The Bush Doctrine is a new approach to dealing with terrorism.

Rejection of "Realism". Promotion of democracy.

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.
G.W. Bush, Address to Air Force Academy, June 2, 2004

Remove state support for terrorist networks

...countries that gave safe haven to terrorists and refused to clean them out were asking the United States to do it for them, and the regimes ruling these countries were also asking to be overthrown in favor of new leaders with democratic aspirations.
N. Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine, Sept. 2004

Pre-emption

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.
G.W. Bush, Statue of the Union Address, January 2002

Conditional supportfor a Palestinian state

My question is: What are the alternatives to the Bush Doctrine?

9/11 Report - Browse It

2004-08-24T15:13:00.000-07:00

It's a pre-requisite for understanding the nature of terrorism that
the US faces. I like this version of 9/11 commision report.

Terror metrics

2004-08-24T11:17:00.000-07:00

"If you can't measure it, you can't manage it." - Peter Drucker

However, it's not clear that we measure terrorism accurately. Moreover, the organizations responsible for measuring could be stuck in an outmoded ontology.

The State Department has had to correct and re-issue annual terrorism reports. What sense do you get when you look at the actual amended "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003"? I see a lot of emphasis on "state sponsored" terrorism. Even though Al-Qaeda and Islamic groups are readily mentioned, there's a tendency to categorize their activities within the context of a sponsoring nation.

Is part of the measurement problem the State department's model? Are they stuck on the "state-sponsored" model while the actual activities are driven by more dynamic networks?

The basic question

2004-08-24T09:46:00.000-07:00

This blog is about the basic question: "Are we at war against terrorism?" I want to present the articles and links that help answer that question. Starting with Osama Bin Laden's declartion of war against Americans.