The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Have you hugged a terrorist today?
: In Reuters coverage of a security conference at Davos, there’s this little rhetorical gem from one Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and head of the International Crisis Group think-tank:
“The unhappy truth is that the net result of the war on terror, so far at least, has been more war and more terror.”
And so what are we supposed to do? Surrender?
Yes, wars tend to bring more fighting — until somebody wins.
That somebody will be us.
You’re damn right.
Land of the swashbucklers, home of the paranoids.
Firas, if you guys were in charge, we would be the land of the dead and the home of the enslaved ;)
you take yourself too seriously
You guys are doing that to yourselves well enough, capt joe.
Although it is interesting to muse about what I’d do if in charge. DMCA, Patriot Act, Censorware in libraries = first few my list of things to be killed and enslaved.
Capt Joe, you just don’t understand. Unless we do it perfectly and in jig time, it’s a miserable failure and should be stopped. I’m with Firas. Let’s do away with laws against bank robbery and murder, for sure, because after 200+ years we still haven’t stopped them. Also, we gotta let go of laws against corporate misbehavior, because, damn, they’re still doing it. Likewise, we must give up on health care (people still getting sick and dying) and all the welfare programs (still got poor people). See how easy it is when all you have to do is point out imperfection and not suggest actual cures or fixes?
C’mon, capt joe, move over to the Left where the livin’ is easy and the target environment is rich.
Hey JorgXMcKie, while common sense may well be ‘left’ of most Americans, it’s squarely in the center for the rest of the world. Are you honestly for the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and censorware? I’d just picked them out as examples of things we can all agree on removing–apparently I was mistaken.
Yes, Firas, you are mistaken. About many things. Thanks for saying so.
Fight the good fight and come out the other end victorious. I am all for it and belive we can and will win. I think what some (and I wont try to pigeon hole them here and I may in fact be one of them) worry about is the cost to the important intagibles which makes us who we are and are the bedrocks upon which any lasting success must be built. Freedom of expression is one of those things, please feel free to add to the list. Some are nukes and ICBMs or course.
And here I thought that Libya has abandoned WMD, Iran is allowing nuclear inspectors, Afghanistan has a new Constitution, no more
The idea that the war on terror has caused more terror is remarkably simplistic. Since 9/11, the largest Al Qaeda-related terrorist attacks have happened in countries that haven’t been fully engaged in the battle. Specifically in Indonesia(the Bali bombing) and Saudi Arabia (the Riyadh bombings) and Turkey (the Instabul bombings). All of these countries were up until those attacks uncooperative or inconsistent in that battle, and the attacks on Turkey happened shortly after its Parliament refused to let the coalition bring invasion forces into Northern Iraq. (Where the first targets would be Ansar Al-Islam holdouts.)
Meanwhile, in the Western countries, there have been no major attacks, while hundreds of Qaeda suspects, in Spain, England, Germany, France, Canada and the US, have been apprehended. So what seems to be happening is that Al Qaeda has effectively been pushed out of the Core states of the Western liberal democracies, and they’ve taken the battle into the unstable Seam states. Apparently, the Qaeda gamble is to galvanize the Muslim extremist minority in those countries against the influence of the infidel. That’s a crucial battle, and there’s no other plausible interpretation to it, but that they’ve been pushed back into their own territory. If they could hit Paris, London, or New York, they would, but they’re only getting arrested there.
(“Core” and “seam” states are the terms of Naval War College theorist Thomas Barnett, who has an invaluable essay on the terror war here:
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm )
If they could hit Paris, London, or New York, they would, but they’re only getting arrested there.
It’s hard to form a coherent impression of how al-Qaeda has or hasn’t been affected in the West. There are widespread accounts of people being arrested, deported, held without trial for long periods of time etc — but remarkably few trials and convictions coming out of all this. Maybe the machinery is just moving really slowly, but I don’t get the impression that this is for lack of trying on the part of the Bush Admin; quite the reverse. Certainly some high-profile arrests and victories, you’d think, would help their case.
It’s also hard to know what to make of the “terror alerts,” which have always seemed more a tool of political theatre than anything else and seem to run contrary to claims that al-Qaeda are basically vanquished in the “core” countries.
Your assessment of the al-Qaeda strategy among Muslims seems sound, though. In fact, some have argued that creating the preconditions for this was precisely the point of 9-11.
“There are widespread accounts of people being arrested, deported, held without trial for long periods of time etc — but remarkably few trials and convictions coming out of all this.”
I understood that domestic anti-terrorist doctrine had shifted away from a prosecutorial goal (acting only after gathering enough evidence for a criminal conviction) to interdiction (act once a threat to public safety becomes apparent). If that’s the case, the result you describe is exactly what one would expect to see: more enforcement activity, fewer criminal convictions, and few if any successful terrorist acts.
Firas, the head of the ACLU disagrees with you:
While much of the Patriot Act is neutral legislation for civil liberties, it contains about a dozen provisions that simply go too far,” Romero added. “These dangerous provisions increase the chances that innocent Americans will be swept into terrorism investigations by removing traditional checks and balances on law enforcement and oversight powers from the judiciary.”
–Executive Director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero. From the Volokh Conspiracy. Interesting. This doesn’t fit the hysteria.
Part of the problem, as w/ the Cold War, is metrics.
How many attacks DIDN’T happen b/c of what you’re doing? How effective is deterrence?
Hard to tell.
But as for al-Q, part of it is that these people aren’t being arrested. They’re being killed. Thus, a number of senior al-Qaeda folks have been killed or captured.
These incl:
Mohammed Atef—Military Chief (k)
Abu Zubaydah—Terrorist coordinator (c)
Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri—Persian Gulf ops (c)
Qaed Salim Sinan Al-Harethi—Yemen ops (k)
Omar al-Farouq—SE Asia chief (c)
Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi—Training (c)
And that’s just a partial list, and only of some of the top leaders. (Interestingly, we’ve also nailed a number of logisticians and financiers, which probably have had more repercussions than recognized, thus far.)
As any soldier will tell you, killing NCOs is essential, b/c they provide the backbone for any force. In Iraq, in the Philippines, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it’s not just “soldiers” of al-Qaeda, but more experienced trainers, “NCOs” and the like who are getting nailed.
linden:
“These dangerous provisions increase the chances that innocent Americans will be swept into terrorism investigations by removing traditional checks and balances on law enforcement and oversight powers from the judiciary.”
The guy agrees with me! How many people at Guantanamo have lawyers? How many people have been jailed in the US without charges and fair trail? What, should I pull out the judiciary slams on the above cases? This is about *your* freedom, not mine, so it’s your choice eventually–but hey, it’s really unAmerican from what I can see.
If [interdiction is] the case, the result you describe is exactly what one would expect to see: more enforcement activity, fewer criminal convictions, and few if any successful terrorist acts.
Where the grey area lies is that the first two, at least, are also what you would expect from largely cosmetic measures that aren’t really tackling the problem. Given that, it’s hard to infer what the lack of terrorist acts really means. Maybe what we’re being told is true, or maybe not. It’s hard to assess, as Dean notes (though yes, the assassination tactic is probably a factor).
“What are we supposed to do. Surrender?”
Such an extraordinarily simplistic evasion. Clearly in that mindset, there is only one way to do something. Forget looking for, or even listening to, alternate solutions.
There’s an electrical fire and the fireman is pumping water on it. “Look,” I say, “it doesn’t seem to be putting out the fire and in fact may be causing others to start up.” The fireman responds: “What am I supposed to do. Surrender?”
No, idiot. Use a chemical extinguisher.
After decades of an ever increasing war on drugs with billions of dollars spent and the largest prison population in the free world, drugs are still available and dealing them illegally is more profitable than ever. The war isn’t working. What are we supposed to do. Surrender? No, idiot. Use education and legalization to take away the profits from the criminals and actually reduce addiction problems.
“Yes, wars tend to bring more fighting — until somebody wins.”
Nice thought. Used to work that way. But what if… what if fighting generates disaffected people who can be seduced to the evil side of terrorism, and killing terrorists is the best tool for recruiting new terrorists… for generations? Isn’t it worthwhile to at least consider whether we might be putting water on an electrical fire? That we might want to look for another solution? And that thinking that way does not in any way suggest a desire to surrender?