Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Middle East looms large for Barack Obama, and in Washington it's clear that the seething arc of crises from Gaza and Lebanon through Iraq and Iran into Afghanistan and Pakistan won't let Obama ignore the region from Day One. Starting today, and continuing for the rest of this week, I'm presenting a series of pieces about Obama's Middle East. Today, we start with the so-called War on Terror. Tomorrow, I'll deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Thursday, Iraq. On Friday, Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. And on Monday, Iran.
Perhaps the area where Barack Obama can make the quickest, and most effective, pivot from the administration of George W. Bush is with the so-called War on Terror.
For seven years and four months, the United States has been engaged in a monumentally flawed and destructive campaign that President Bush described as an all-out effort against terrorism and terrorist groups of "global reach." It includes two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lethal counterterrorism effort waged by the CIA and the Pentagon's Special Forces units, and a global effort to expand US military and intelligence ties to countries throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.
Unfortunately, from the start the United States conflated its lone real enemy, Al Qaeda, with a panoply of unrelated states and organizations, some Islamist and some secular, creating a mythical bloc of evil-doers under the heading of what John McCain called, redundantly, "radical Islamic extremism." In the mix, Bush rolled up Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, various Pakistani Islamist groups, and others into one big terrorist ball of wax. Predictably, and aided by the anti-Muslim prejudices of the Christian right, it became a Crusade against Islam, at least in as seen through the lens of people living in the Middle East and South Asia. No wonder that anti-American sentiment throughout the region reached all-time highs.
There are three things that Obama can do in this regard.
First, Obama can declare victory against Al Qaeda. For the most part, Al Qaeda is dead and buried. Despite the hysterical warnings that continue to emanate from members of the US terrorism-industrial complex -- from people like Frances Townsend, who formerly advised Bush on terrorism, and from members of the hardy band of terrorism specialists who have an interest in sustaining an inordinate fear of Al Qaeda -- the organization is toothless. For the past three years, Al Qaeda has not launched a single attack against any Western target, including the United States and Europe.
Last week, no less an authority than Dell Dailey, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, said: "We see Al Qaeda, in a centralized role, (as being) totally controlled. Bin Laden can't get an operational effort off the ground without it being detected ahead of time and being thwarted. Their ability to reach is nonexistent." Predictably, Dailey's comments didn't get much attention, in part because the US media doesn't like to headline reports that don't set off fire alarms. But Dailey's right. Al Qaeda is pretty much finished, although vigilance and continued mopping up operations, especially in Waziristan, are required. It's been crushed in Afghanistan, it has been utterly destroyed in Iraq, it has been obliterated in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and its operations base in North Africa, which was mostly locally focused anyway, is under siege.
So Obama can declare victory over Al Qaeda. Using his supremely confident aura of cool, he can de-escalate the rhetoric. He can tell Americans that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. He can tell them that the threat of terrorism, for Americans, has been reduced to the level of a nuisance. He can assure Americans that they are safe and secure. He can emphasize that the chance that terrorists might get ahold of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction is close to zero. And he can explain that, in the unlikely event of another attack -- say, a Mumbai-style explosion of guerrilla war or an Oklahoma City-style truck bombing -- the United States will undertake a patient and ruthless effort to track down the perpetrators.
Second, Obama can make it clear that the United States is, from now on, playing by the rules. No more torture. No more rendition to torture-prone nations. No more Guantanamo. No more Abu Ghraibs. Respect for the rule of law. In all of this, the United States will use its intelligence and law enforcement apparatus with utmost professionalism to protect Americans, preventing terrorist acts when we can and tracking down the terrorists when we can't.
And third, Obama should deliver a major speech, aimed at Americans, explaining the many and subtle differences among the opponents and adversaries of the United States in the Muslim world. On the one hand, he should say, there can be no reconciliation or truce with Al Qaeda. On the other hand, with nearly all of the other components of the Bush-McCain Terrorist Ball of Wax -- Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, especially -- we will talk, we will listen, we will negotiate, we will seek at least a truce, and we will try to establish a permanent, working accord.
In declaring an end to the War on Terror, Obama will have no choice but to provide Americans with a detailed, and rational, explanation of who the enemy is -- and who it is not. This cannot be a one-speech effort. Rather, it will require a sustained communications effort by Obama and his entire team. Seven years of mind-numbing propaganda from the Bush White House has convinced tens of millions of Americans that the threat of terrorism is both imminent and vast. Those tens of millions are convinced that an enormous, global terrorist movement that extends far beyond Al Qaeda is out to get us. It is Obama's urgent task to explain, calmly, that it isn't so. For seven years, Bush used the trauma of 9/11 to stoke Americans' fears, and in so doing he created an enemy that doesn't exist in the real world. Like the mythical Iraqi WMD, the worldwide terrorist threat isn't there. Obama can say so.
Will he do this? It's not impossible. During several interviews, John Brennan, one of Obama's top intelligence advisers who will lead the White House's counterterrorism policy efforts, told me that he is flatly opposed to the very notion of a "War on Terror." And, he told me, he favors the idea of a dialogue with organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And he suggested that Obama feels the same way.
Though Obama is inexperienced in international affairs, putting an end to the War on Terror once and for all is a step that will appeal to his instincts. He's pledged to deliver a major address on US relations with the Islamic world, and he's said that he would do so in an Arab or Muslim capital, perhaps Cairo. Stay tuned.
Tomorrow: Obama and Afghanistan.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
If Obama just isn't stupid, not even pro-actively smart....
that's an 80% fix on most of Bush's "War on Terror".
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 10:28am
Not sure what Mask means by "isn't stupid", but 80% is a little optimistic. Israel's invasion of Gaza after decades of terrible repression and abuse puts the U.S. in an untenable position. The U.S. no-bid contracts have not only wasted billions it has thwarted the very local economy it was supposed to fix in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just fixing the misleading rhetoric isn't even 10% of the problem (for one thing we can expect a howl from the conservative talkingheads and general stupidity from the mainstream media in response).
Posted by Cannonball at 01/13/2009 @ 10:45am
time for the professor to take to the airways and try to educate the marching morons. good point, robert.
like i've said before...i think obama really wants to give it one last try to capture bin laden, which should occupy at least the first year of his presidency.
perhaps this will be possible with the help of pakistan, which a fresh faced, fresh idea totin' american president might be able to pull off.
but if not then i am confident obama will make the correct choice. we shall see, of course.
the idea of calling a victory over al qaeda IS good. i guess our historical obsession with considering the only definition of "victory" to be total annihalation or subjection might make such a bit hard to swallow for the fascist leaning uber nationalists of our country, but so what? they are on the wrong side of american political history now anyway.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 10:46am
Posted by Cannonball at 01/13/2009 @ 10:45am
Stupidity like...Attacking countries that never attacked us and were in fact a bulwark against Iran, whereas now they are probably going to become puppets of it.
Moving closer to a moral equivalency with the bad guys, via images like Abu Ghraib and using torture and calling it "intensive interrogation".
Abandoning American civil liberties to fear.
A black and white view of the world, but one that includes people and places like Musharref and Pakistan as part of the "white".
stuff like that.
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/13/2009 @ 10:59am
7 years and no bin Laden capture....how's YOUR side doing, HAPP?
(BTW, here's where you can totally contradict yourself and claim "So what? bin Laden has been neutralized by Dubya"....which would be the exact thing that Mr Dreyfuss is saying!)
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 11:05am
Okay, again, not sure what Mask is saying. The things you list, if I read them right, are terrible and never should have happened.
The general stupidity of the mainstream media that I was referencing is their cowardly reluctance to challenge outright lies and distortions, whether it be the print media or the Today Show.
I tend to read things through my lense of liberalism that allows me to believe things I want to hear and distrust things that I want to be false. I fight that impulse. Reading Glenn Greenwald at Salon and TomDispatch has helped me be a little smarter.
I do trust Obama, but he will be pulled to trade for the things he really wants to accomplish. If he trades on civil liberties, closing Gaunt-Bay, national healthcare or getting out of harms way in Iraq... Well, I'd start reconsidering if the GOP puts up a strong candidate for president next term.
Posted by Cannonball at 01/13/2009 @ 11:13am
"Second, Obama can make it clear that the United States is, from now on, playing by the rules. No more torture. No more rendition to torture-prone nations. No more Guantanamo. No more Abu Ghraibs. Respect for the rule of law.'
That will definitely end the life of the remaining AQ guys alone..I can see Hamas, Hellsbolah and Armyjihad shivering..with joy.. With luck the ACLU will help the Gitmo guys sue us.
"...Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, especially -- we will talk, we will listen, we will negotiate, we will seek at least a truce, and we will try to establish a permanent, working accord."
Seek a truce with the guys who helped set up the training grounds to blow up the Twin Towers? Whats to discuss? Put a bullet between their eyes.. Waziristan? Negoiate with 6th centry man?
I vote we send you, Dreyfuss, there to start negoiations...oh,and be sure to tell them of your Jewish heritage...and even enlighten them on other "Progressive" topics, such as Gay Rights, Womens studies...or even open society so Christians and Jews can come there in exchange programs?
Was not the Taliban a govt for awhile we tried to talk into not blowing up centrys old statutes? Not reducing their women to chattel, not allowing Bin Ladens to openly set up murder camps?
Hamas we talked to and "hoped" they would end their drive the Jews out of the ME by any means policy? Hows that working..
I agree with talking to Iran, all smiles and happy, as I whisper into his ear..I am not like Bush, but you fuck with us and I will blow you ass away...play nice , we play nice... and then have all the meetings and face to face you want.
Get real Deyfuss...you would have negoiated with Himmler just to allow fresh fruit into the camps...
You will get us all killed.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 11:30am
Lets hope that Obama relies on plain old "good judgment" rather than lockstep manifesto such as that espoused by PNAC and W. These characters were so detached from reality, and so filled with the arrogance of power - a sad miscalculation that has cost us and will continue to cost us dearly. W's press conference yesterday was truly scary. Commander in Chief? Yikes. More like a petulant child trying to avoid his legacy.
We never did get an answer on exactly what "victory" meant to W. I guess it was an amorphous concept, like that which drives megalomanical doctrine and its adherents. Defining realistic and measurable goals in foreign policy would be a good start for Obama.
Knowing "when" to say "when" is the mark of a prudent leader.
Posted by OneVote at 01/13/2009 @ 11:34am
Respectfully Mr. Dreyfuss, I don't know why you continue to write of the incoming Obama Administration as if there is any hope left it will improve affairs in the Middle East. AlMr. Obama has done is put into place in his administration figures with an established Israel-first or Israel-booster history, many American Jewish Zionists themselves, and an idiotic Secretary of State who hasn't any foreign policy experience and whose public statements appear limited to sabre-rattling against Iran. In terms of the history of the actors, and the language in their current statements, all we can see in Mr. Obama's administration is a likelihood of continued high-handed "war on terror" gunboat diplomacy and mindless adherence to Israel.
Even Mr. Obama himself has publicly stated that if we look at the Bush II and Clinton governments, we largely will have a picture of his plan. He has clearly and unequivocally stated that there will be no clean break from the past.
Why do you continue to write as if there is such a hope, a hope for a clean break?
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 12:11pm
PS, for those who can stomach her, here is the New York Times' "live blog" of Mrs. Clinton's confirmation "hearing", wherein she is describing a 100% business-as-usual trajectory: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/ live-blog-clintons-confirmation-hearing/?hp
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 12:14pm
Here, enjoy a taste of the future: the insufferable and smarmy Hillary Rodham Clinton's comment on Gaza to her confirmation committee, courtesy of the AP:
"... we have ...been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians ..."
What we have in this statement is compelling of evidence of a deeply racist and brutal perspective in the Obama administration; three Israeli civilians have died in these rocket attacks, which have otherwise damaged a number of structures. The Israeli savages, on the other hand, have killed nearly 1000 Palestinians, nearly half non-combatants, most of those, women and children. They have injured nearly 4500, in a war of aggression that is connected to their February 10 election.
The Israelis suffer 3 civilian casualities, and 10 soldiers dead in their elective war of aggression. The Palestians suffer nearly 6,500 killed and wounded.
And the inherently and brutally racist comment from Clinton? Equates the two blandly, without mentioning any detail.
No, there is no hope at all for any improvement in the Middle East in the Obama administration.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 12:22pm
You will get us all killed.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 11:30am
Boo!!! You guys are still wetting yourselves over the boogey man I see.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/13/2009 @ 12:26pm
"For the most part, Al Qaeda is dead and buried. [...]the organization is toothless. For the past three years, Al Qaeda has not launched a single attack against any Western target, including the United States and Europe."
Is Dreyfuss giving Bush some praise here, or is he implying that Al-Qaeda simply vanished overnight?
Posted by jmiltonburke at 01/13/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person All the crap about the "peace process" is window dressing and laughable. Good read on Israel's position on Gaza, and of course, US position will be subject to the same anti-dissent suppression and objectivity.
MIDEAST: Israel in No Mood to Brook Dissent - Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=45390
Even left-wing politicians and would-be peace advocates offer remarkably few challenges on the political context of the war and the effect it will have on any future relations with the Palestinians and the Arab world. Attempts to link the war in Gaza and the continued occupation in the West Bank are almost non-existent.
Israel may be unmasking its true self, says left-wing politician and a former education minister, Yossi Sarid. Writing in Haaretz, he sees a possible salutary impact: "The war is resolving a painful conflict between our self-image and our actual behaviour. We have consciously decided to relinquish what we regarded as our own moral supremacy."
Dr. Ruhama Marton, president of the Israeli Physicians for Human Rights believes that's wishful thinking. "We maintain that self-image of absolute morality. Day after day we hear this is the most justified war, that our army is the most moral army in the world. But at root, Israel still sees itself as victim," says Dr. Marton, "and as a victim you're always absolutely right. When you're absolutely right, there's no room for challenges."
More prosaically, most Jewish Israelis feel good about the war not only because they regard it as 'just', but because they see it as successful. They simply don't want any spoilers -- from outside or inside....................
Posted by OneVote at 01/13/2009 @ 12:42pm
I wonder if Al Qaeda isn't manufactured to play its role. Bin Laden isn't captured because his threat gives legitimacy to western governments' outrageous emergency measures.
Fear keeps us passive. Fear has us thanking our "leaders" for stripping us of our liberties. Fear has us putting the economic perpetrators in charge of the rescue.
I think Bin Laden came out of central casting and is merely a ruse. World government based on collectivism is the final scene.
Psssst. It's an inside job.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/13/2009 @ 12:45pm
PE Obama and Hillary Clinton must think as one on foreign policy and we can't have this notion that we can act alone and dismiss the rest of the world. The Israeli policy is definitely one that needs changing for sure, they cannot be our controllers any longer. Diplomacy must be paramount before military might is an option...no longer must our troops be sent into battle under the guise of "democracy or freedom" as that was Bush's mantra for years. Any war must be a "just" war and have the backing of our allies no more of this going it alone nonsense!!! I have great faith that with our new administration they will have a much better understanding of what going to "war" involves and not be prepared to send our troops into harms way unnecessarily
Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 12:47pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/13/2009 @ 11:14am
See, happy to draw you into a contradiction, HAPPY.
So bin Laden is dead, and what shape is Al Qaeda in...all thanks to Dubya, of course?
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 12:52pm
Boo!!! You guys are still wetting yourselves over the boogey man I see.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/13/2009 @ 12:26pm
Not afraid, just want to be prepared..
I imagine if you hear a "Bang" in a city near you..then my "Boo" won't look so bad?
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 1:19pm
Mr. Dreyfuss says above "First, Obama can declare victory against Al Qaeda. For the most part, Al Qaeda is dead and buried."
WOW! I think Obama, and Mr. Dreyfuss, too, need to check with crabwalk first.
Crabwalk has, over and over again, on these blogs, promoted the concept that the War on Terror has essentially created al-Qaeda or at least for sure enabled them beyond what they would have been otherwise.
And crabwalk seems to believe that not only George W. Bush but anybody that agrees with the decision to go to Iraq is responsible for the enabling of al-Qaeda.
It certainly seems to me that crabwalk believes al-Qaeda is alive and well and flourishing, yet Mr. Dreyfuss says they are dead and buried.
Libs don't agree with each other, except they are in common agreement in their maniacal Bush hatred.
Here's an example of crabwalk's thoughts:
=================
Well SJ, it looks like your little war has done AQ quite a bit of good. Heckuva job.
Gotta cut and run, gotta pay those evil taxes so that your war can continue to kill Americans and increase the membership of AQ and Hamas.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards men. Some day your policies may actually accomplish your Messiahs desires, but not any time soon.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:49am
==================
Posted by sjchermak at 01/13/2009 @ 1:25pm
Declaring victory on the so-called War on Terror would be a naïve. What if we are attacked again by Al-Qaeda or some other kook radical Jihadist group? Would the so-called War on Terror be reinstated?
Posted by Manwaplan at 01/13/2009 @ 1:39pm
Would the so-called War on Terror be reinstated?
Posted by Manwaplan at 01/13/2009 @ 1:39pm
Naw, we would just ask them what they want and need..apologise for existing and offer them forgein aid of some sort as we promise them no violent response but will provide them with lawyers...at tax payers expense, of course.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 1:47pm
The real question is, is not whether he WILL do it, but whether he WANTS to end the War on Terror. All throughout the primaries he said how he planned to Destroy Al-Qaida, to Take them Out, wherever they may be. He seemed to buy into the War on Terror as much as the next politician of Status Quo. None of his actions would suggest that he truly wants to end this FABLED War on Terror. Not his decision to keep Bob Gates in power, a Bush cronie that is completely in support of this so called War on Terror. Not in his actions during his trip across the Oceans, where he spent minimal time, at best in the Arabic/Muslim worlds and an unusually long time in Israel, complete with being a part of some religious ceremony. Obama has also spoke of growing, or expanding out already HUGE military. To add to the Military Industrial Complex is not a step in the direction of ending an Imperial War Machine. Let us not forget that Obama was also for the FISA bill, a tool in favor of the governments ability to spy on who they deem to be "terrorists". So all in all I would have to say that Obama doesn't seem to be heading in the direction of someone who wants to or will put an End to this ridiculous "War on Terror". Please visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/13/2009 @ 1:52pm
This is sure to anger the far left but is good news for those who refuse to allow terrorists to dictate the rights and peace of people.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 1:22pm
So I guess you think that Sen Clinton and PE Obama will carry on with Bush's policy in the Middle East? I think you will also find she mentioned diplomacy and the right's of the Palestinian people...you may find that Israel won't have the same bragging rights of owning us that they had with Bush. This policy has not worked being so tied up with Israel and PE Obama and Clinton can see that, the people here and around the world are tired of this constant backing of Israel. So, I wouldn't be too sure that it's going to be business as usual under an Obama administration. If comments on the Obama Gov website is anything to go by people are up in arms about this Israeli policy and want something done about it. We know that the Obama team are really interested in what we have to say and they are getting unindated with comments about that.
Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 1:56pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/13/2009 @ 1:25pm
So, SJ, happy to let you play. Is it true that-
1. bin Laden is either dead or "neutralized"?
2. Al Qaeda is "on the run"?
3. That both of those are credits to George W. Bush?
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 2:16pm
Well done Robert - but I'm afraid you showed your cards.
"Obama will have no choice but to provide Americans with a detailed, and rational, explanation of who the enemy is -- and who it is not."
Robert explained clearly that the Al Qadea threat does not exist. However, if AQ was not or is no longer a threat, how will Obama provide a detailed explanation on an enemy that does not exist? Is Robert saying that there have been other enemies that threaten lives of Americans all this time that we werent told about?
All the time the fake War on Terror was waged on the fake Al Qaeda and phony Axis of Evil there has been other enemies out there just too scary to mention or too powerful to be attacked?
Of course not. The fact is there are no enemies of the US for Obama to provide a detailed explanation of. There are only rivals.
Whilst the Superpower status of the US is on the rapid decline, China's star is on the ascendance. (6% expected growth in this worldwide downturn as opposed to negative growth - oxymoron- in the West). Add to that the emerging economy of Russia both of whom have strong strategic ties with energy supplying nations and you soon see whom the US State Dept will seek to demonise.
I'll be interested to read Robert's analysis for the rest of week on how the US should wage proxy wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Tibet and other strategic locations under the pretext of fighting terrorism / despotism or advancing human rights. The real reason being to try and restrict China and Russia from accessing vital gas pipleines, oil fields,shipping channels and thereby increase their Superpower status whilst the $ is resigned to the dustbin.
Has Robert shown us he is just another PR man for the Obama/Banking oligarchy?
Posted by isispapers at 01/13/2009 @ 2:18pm
But like most leftists, you don't even give him credit for that.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 2:57pm
You are right Bush did say that and he also stopped a bombing raid on Iran that our good friends Israel wanted to do. I give him credit for anything he has done which is right and those were right, so don't say "most leftist's" dont' give him credit for anything. In lots of cases though he has been out and out wrong and that is my right to voice that opinion if I disagree with him.
Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 3:37pm
And furthermore, Bush in a stand that I disagreed with..."---Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 2:57pm
So you admit that my characterization of your position as "extreme" is accurate...given you're even to the Right of Dubya?
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 4:27pm
Most "Terrorists" organizations have a national orientation and do not pose an international threat. They , therefore, do not present a threat to our national interest or people. The major thrust of American foreign policy should be "preemptive diplomacy" in order to mitigate or prevent conflicts. Treat people with respect, and no heated rhetoric!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/13/2009 @ 5:45pm
The major thrust of American foreign policy should be "preemptive diplomacy" in order to mitigate or prevent conflicts. Treat people with respect, and no heated rhetoric!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/13/2009 @ 5:45pm
Amen to that theory, lets hope Obama will put that into practice...we've been too eager to go to war at the drop of a hat.
Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 6:00pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 1:22pm From Wikipedia:
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror [1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.[6] A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents".
Seems to me that the use of "Terrorism" could be applied to all the players in any conflict. Not just a select few..
Posted by chaoszen at 01/13/2009 @ 6:00pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 2:16pm </i>
Well...if you buy (1) and (2)...it's kind of hard to reject (3), wouldn't you say? Few other nations have been doing much fighting against al Qaeda, unless I'm missing something. Granted, a lot of the fighting is against an al Qaeda that we helped to expand in the first place, but still...
Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 6:23pm
Obama's emphasis on negotiation is smart and I applaud for this one aspect. I don't know if negotiations will be fair, but I do believe in dialogue which our current admin. and the GOP (and many Dems) generally frown upon (how else to fully back the military industrial complex, Christian fundies etc.?). Starting with the Neo-Taliban, they can be negotiated with and even Karzai wants to. They are not the same as AQ, but rather an expression of Pashtun nationalism (same in Pakistan, where however a Pashtun political party is far more popular so politically they are a dead-end even if they continue to wreck havoc on the people of Waziristan and the NWFP). Incorporating the Taliban will mean that they will have to lay down their arms and join the electoral process and empower enough of them to prefer a settled life to war. With Iraq, at the very least, justice would be the Kurds getting a state (and they weren't transplanted from Europe either) and possibly the current country breaking up (as it has pretty much since the surge made less difference than segregating the factions). Some things can't be fixed. The larger war on terror has always been absurd at a conceptual basis (like war on drugs etc.) and AQ has always been like the mafia and not the former USSR. Yet we outspend the next 7 biggest military budgets on Earth. We need a bigger nuclear arsenal I guess to make sure people with rifles don't threaten America. AQ doesn't matter anyway. It's the copycats and others who take up arms when they see us back, for example, Israel's destructive attack on Gaza. We alienate much of that part of the world by interfering in their affairs and then act surprised when they hate us. Iran's current situation can, after all, be directly attributable to Operation Ajax.
Posted by nukemind at 01/13/2009 @ 6:52pm
Operation Ajax being the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. (sound familiar?) led by Mossadeq in favor of the hated Shah. The parallels with Hamas' electoral victory and our attempt to oust them should not be surprising.
Posted by nukemind at 01/13/2009 @ 6:54pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 6:23pm
Then why can't we declare victory in the "War on Terror"?
Oh, right, we HAVEN'T won it...but then...
why are you guys so keen to "credit" Dubya???
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 7:39pm
why should ethnic cleansing be rewarded? the palestinians did not leave voluntarily the territory of today's israel when the state was "created" by western powers in 1948. below is what one of the leading israel-based israeli historians of the creation of modern israel, benny morris, said during a famous interview he gave to haaretz (link further below). [...] "Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place *o v e r c a m e t h e i n j u s t i c e* that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."
he explains what "uprooting" means elsewhere in the interview: orchestrated mass rapes, massacres, and harassments by jewish armed bands.
hence creating the jewish state was such a noble goal that it was ok for the jews to rob, rape, and massacre the palestinians "like the arabs did". adolf hitler could not have said it better for das reich.
that's why the palestinians "left voluntarily" the Young Besieged State Of IsraelTM (the only democratic one!).
http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html how long will decent people keep tiptoeing around this monstrosity and keep asking the palestinians to make "concessions"!? it's time to expand israel to the west bank and gaza and transform it into a nonconfessional democratic state for everybody with no special rights for anybody (btw, apartheid south africa was "democratic" too).
Posted by erplus at 01/13/2009 @ 8:16pm
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 7:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So, Mask, tell me ... what's YOUR on the substance of what Dreyfuss wrote? What is YOUR stance on WHICH issues? Or are you just here to continue to try to impress yourself by sniping at other people's positions, without ever responding any of these positions in full or even indicating that you've read all of what's been written? What evidence is there that you have anything to contribute beyond denouncing somebody as an "extremist"? What evidence is there in anything you've written here that even indicates you read what Dreyfuss wrote, or that you have any understanding of the situation in Gaza, or an opinion or viewpoint of your own, one way or another?
Your agenda on every thread you comment on appears purely centered on provoking a response from other posters by characterizing or mis-characterizing what the posters write or the posters themselves. But you never once make any stand of your own. Do you have any views or opinions of your own that you hold on the Gaza slaughter? Do you have a moral framework you operate in? A worldview? Do you have a position of your own staked on clear and articulable factual terms? Anything at all to say besides "[poster] is an extremist"?
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 8:18pm
Oh, and Mask? Count on me to not provide multi-paragraph responses containing thought-out notions in response to someone who reads 10% of what is written, comprehends less, and duly chugs out a 20-word characterization or mis-characterization of your correspondent in return. Whatever our agreement or disagreement, I for one don't feel that you properly value the time and effort people here have spent in front of me, even over the brief period I've spent on this web site commenting, attempting to communicate with you. If you just need to convince yourself of your superficial cleverness, by all means move forward with all haste, but don't count on me to spend much effort helping out in the future.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 8:22pm
why are you guys so keen to "credit" Dubya???
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 7:39pm
1. We could credit, the Salvation Front, Petraeus, the American military, al Maliki or all the Iraqis who never gave up in their desire to rebuild their country, and finally the faithful 28 %. But of course without W's war, the others would not have been able to play their part. There is no infinite regress here so the buck stops with"Dubya".
2. To upset Mask.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/13/2009 @ 8:48pm
Your agenda on every thread you comment on appears purely centered on provoking a response from other posters by characterizing or mis-characterizing what the posters write or the posters themselves.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 8:18pm
that's what he's paid to do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 9:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 8:49pm
Larry, I think you prove my point.
If "Bush is a moderate", (A) you're so far out on the Right that "extreme" is the only possible word...
and (B) you will NEVER get a President any better (for your politics)...ever.
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 10:20pm
Posted by syfriendly at 01/13/2009 @ 8:18pm
See, I believe in diplomacy and negotiation. So I can assume, given you support violence (from Hamas...as LVLIB supports violence from Israel)...
that you would consider that "naive" at best and "just crypto-Zionism" at worst.
And as seen on the other thread, I did NOT mischaracterize you, as you are now clearly endorsing Hamas' rocket attacks as "defending themselves" and have stated that an economic stranglehold on Israel should be threatened and if need be used, to force it to the bargaining table.
Fortunately, you are as politically inert in this country as the "Let Israel nuke the A-rabs" types.
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 10:24pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 7:39pm </i>
I'm not. I'm just saying that the inconsistency you claim for comanche turns back on you just as easily.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 11:27pm
Whew!
Am I relieved.
And I thought there were people who wanted to kill Americans.
How silly of me.
Posted by bleedingheart at 01/14/2009 @ 07:40am
Wow, what an article? This statement that "creating a mythical bloc of evil-doers under the heading of what John McCain called, redundantly, radical Islamic extremism" really staggered me. So the many murderous attacks on our embassies, our Navy, two attacks on the World Trade Center, one on the Pentagon, the constant barrage of missals on Israel, and the thousands of murders of innocent civilians around the world are just myths. How anyone can manipulate the facts and cone up with this conclusion is amazing. In an effort to turn opinion in favor of terrorists this Dreyfus Report has twisted the truth until it turned blue and expired. If the author truly believes that the Al Qaeda threat is nonexistent he should talk to some of the survivors and relatives of the victims of these attacks and tell them that Al Qaeda's threat is a myth
Posted by vladimirval at 01/14/2009 @ 1:07pm
Posted by vladimirval at 01/14/2009 @ 1:07pm
nobody's attacking finland......
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:51pm