John Kerry will probably accept Bush’s apology

Back in 2004, Bush told a Florida audience, “[John] Kerry said, and I quote, ‘The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.’ (Audience boos.) I disagree…. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America — and war is what they got. (Audience applauds.)”

Bush, pleased with himself and the reaction, repeated the attack again and again and again. The point was obvious — paint an image in which Bush battles terrorists with the most powerful military in the world, while Kerry fights al Qaeda with cops and lawyers.

Four years later, McCain is picking up where Bush left off. As it turns out, Bush and McCain are clearly wrong.

The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group’s leaders, a new study contends.

“Keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight,” said the study by the federally funded Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon.

Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term “war on terror” and replace it with “counterterrorism.”

Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist, told Reuters, “Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism. The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy.”

Ya don’t say.

In a sensible political environment, the Rand report’s conclusion would be obvious and beyond question. Indeed, I thought we’d already resolved this.

A terrorist plot was disrupted in Germany last fall thanks to the combined efforts of intelligence gathering and law-enforcement operations. The alleged plot at JFK airport was discovered after the combined efforts of intelligence gathering and law-enforcement operations. The alleged plot at Fort Dix was discovered after the combined efforts of intelligence gathering and law-enforcement operations. The alleged British hijacking plot was discovered after the combined efforts of intelligence gathering and law-enforcement operations. The list goes on and on.

We catch the bad guys, prevent terrorism, and save lives through these combined efforts. Why anyone would find this controversial is a mystery to me. Why John McCain continues to embrace such a flawed counter-terrorism strategy is even more odd.

Reuters added:

Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said.

By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases.

Jones, in an interview, said, “Even where we found some success against al-Qaida, in Pakistan and Iraq, the military played a background or surrogate role. The bulk of the action was taken by intelligence, police and, in some cases, local forces.”

“We are not saying the military should not play a role,” he said. “But unless you are talking about large insurgencies, military force should not be the tip of the spear.”

If Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the entire Republican establishment is prepared to apologize, I’m sure the rest of us would appreciate it.

Oy, and from Rand! That has to hurt!

  • It’s not “manly” to talk about laws. In short, a military operation offers a visceral, immediate, act of revenge, and that appeals to short-sighted emotional outbursts. Unfortunately, it doesn’t solve the problem, and until we get real-live grown ups in charge of our responses to terrorism, we’re going to be stuck with childish tantrums that result in thousands dead. In short, we need to place counter-terrorism policies ahead of political gains, and that hasn’t been a staple of the discussion since 2001.

  • The notion that war is an effective method for fighting terrorism is and always has been nonsensical. Terrorists aren’t governments, they are independent groups, often small and disconnected. That is not something you can fight a literal war against.

    On top of that, war only helps terrorists. Bin Laden himself has said that the attacks on 9/11 were meant to bait the US into a war. Every civilian killed in Iraq and Afghanistan just drums up more support for those who oppose the US.

    Terrorism seems to me a lot like bullying. What did your mom always tell you about bullies? Ignore them and they will go away. If you let them get to you then they have the power. Terrorism is the same way. We have to resist being terrorized. Of course, we can’t ignore terrorists in the same way, but the fight cannot be a real war. Islamic extremism is an ideology. You fight ideology with opposing ideology, not with bombs.

    One last point: I am sick and tired of America lumping all extremists under the label “Al-Qeada.” It makes it appear as though Islamic terrorists are all part of one monolithic entity, which makes them seem scarier than they are. They should be portrayed as what they are: small, largely disjointed groups operating independently. Divide an conquer, right? Much of the power of terrorists comes from how they are viewed as one massive group.

  • Spent a year in the Mekong Delta fighting actual VC. By the time I was there the fighting to the north of us was largely with the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). We did as much damage when we captured a VC tax collector as we did in any number of firefights.
    Declaring war on terrorists elevates them to the status of worthy opponents rather than thuggish ideologues who need to be arrested and incarcerated. They are transformed into martyrs rather than criminals.

  • The “War on Terror” has worked just about as well as the “War on Drugs” and for many of the same reasons. One big one is that “war” ennobles the adversary – even if it only creates an “outlaw” identification, it makes the choice to be a violent fanatic or drug pusher much more attractive to misguided romantics.

    The “War on Drugs” insures that drugs will be valued more highly, both monetarily and as a desired commodity than if unhealthy drug use were treated as primarily a health problem – i.e., if you were not seen as an outlaw but as a person with mental/emotional problems, you’d be less likely to take that first snort. And of course, illicit drug sales couldn’t be used to fund illicit gov’t programs like the Iran/Contra mess in the Raygun years…

    Same with “War on Terror” – romanticizing terrorists insures a limitless supply. If you build your identity around “fighting terrorism” like Publicans do, you need terrorists.

  • I must note that the US’s supposed triumphs were against plots that could best be described as laughable.

    I’m sure the fReichtards will be along to tell us that Rand is full of Islahomofascists and/or military force hasn’t been successful because the military in question didn’t use enough force. Then it will devolve into a question of how the icky libs won’t let Bush nuke Iran.

  • Bush/Cheney have no respect for the law. They have violated the laws of this nations with impunity. They and their minions ignore subpoenas, lie under oath, wire tap without warrants, torture, and publicly mock the notion that police would dare to attempt to arrest and incarcerate them.

    It’s no wonder they have no confidence the intelligence/police options for dealing with terrorism. Everybody knows that cops are crooked and subject to bribes. You can cut deals with prosecutors to get them to take impeachment or the death penalty off the table.

    Bush/Cheney probably fantasize about telling anyone who dares to hold them to account to “go f*ck yourself” and to “bring it on” while “taking out” a platoon of hardened commandos in a heroic blaze of glory, who then pry their shotguns from their “cold dead hands.”

  • But how will we continue to show our awesomeness in combining incredible killing power and video-games if we don’t continue to use multi-million dollar weapons to attack terrorists? Don’t you see? The terrorists win!

    In all seriousness, I agree with the previous posters who point out that as soon as the government commits “War” on something, it almost certainly means it will succeed. Let’s not leave off “The War on Poverty”. Oh, and great variations of non-reality-based policies such as “Just say no!” and “Abstinence-only sex education” (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.)

  • “Much of the power of terrorists comes from how they are viewed as one massive group.”

    Almost right – much of the power of the Bush Administration comes from viewing them as one massive group. 😉

  • This struck a note:

    “Kerry said, and I quote, ‘The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.’ (Audience boos.) I disagree…. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.”

    I had to go look at why:

    Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler’s check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

    All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

    By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry’s investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients–it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to “fight the evil influence of the West,” and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry’s investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America’s first great post-Cold War security challenge.”

    And now for the irony:

    Sheikh Abdullah Bahksh of Saudi Arabia, a 16% shareholder in Harken Energy at the time, was represented by a Palestinian-born Chicago investor named Talat Othman, who served with George W. Bush on the board of Harken Energy. Othman made at least three separate visits to the White House to discuss Middle East affairs with then President George Bush. At about the same time, and just prior to the Gulf War, Harken Energy, with no previous international or offshore drilling experience, was awarded a 35-year petroleum exploration contract with the emirate of Bahrain.

    Sheikh Bahksh emerged as a co-investor in the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI), a criminal enterprise since dissolved, that existed primarily as a mechanism for obtaining political influence using Middle Eastern oil money.”

    Frat Boy was getting his rocks off sticking it to Kerry on an apparently very personal level.

  • a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

    The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders

    Fascinating. So 83% of the time, society either assimilates or eliminates terrorist groups.

  • How could this administration embrace the role of law enforcement as an antidote to terror abroad, while it was at the very same moment doing its utmost to extinguish the rule of law at home?

  • OK y’all, here goes:

    I’m sorry……..sorry that y’all are a bunch of ACLU, hybrid drivin’, terrorist lovin’, appeaser weenies! Go get em’ Cheney! Heh heh. That’s why I was elected prezdent.

  • BUSH: Apologize? Never. Any other ideas?

    CHENEY: Attack the Rand corporation as “elitist” or “liberal”?

    BUSH: Hmmm… We have too much of their money…

    CHENEY (opening playbook): “OK, just say: I am not aware of the study you are referring to”

    BUSH: YES!!! Next agenda item please…

  • “Forensic Accounting” just didn’t have that some go-get-’em feel that “Shock & Awe” did.

  • Terrorist win by the huge backlash of spending trillions on weapons and troops to chase down small groups being treated like national armies. It has the same significance of using shock and awe to bomb the hell out of Chicago just to get Al Capone and his gang. But Iraq was never about terrorism however al qaeda is not an army but a group of thugs who flourish by being treated as an army causing significant damage to the huge numbers we send to them to shoot at and by causing us to spend a fortune doing it.

    Counter insurgency was turned into a war by Bush/McCain in order to make huge profits for their buddies. The FBI alone could have kept us just as safe. All the death and destruction caused by this republican regime was completely avoidable and resulted in us being more fearful and less safe. Heck-of-a-job fellas.

  • Apology my ass. I’ll respect the dems a lot more when they simply start punching the scum neocons in the face for their disdain of American laws.

  • I read a book a few years ago that was written by an Irish woman who pretty much explained how to reach peace with insurgents. (I use the word insurgents liberally and as a synonym for terrorists, extremists, freedom fighters etc.)

    I think the book was called “Terrorist” and is a must read for any person looking for a humane and peaceful solution that could be applied to many current conflicts. The solution to the IRA/British conflict was the basis of the book.

  • Of course, the Administration couldn’t entrust pursuit of terrorists to the law enforcement/criminal prosecution route when they knew they’d staffed DoJ with incompetents.

  • Comments are closed.