Third, despite the risks, we have to scour Pakistan for Al Qaeda and close Afghanistan off to its ragtag but dangerous members. To this end, we have to try to persuade Pakistan to take military action against the enemy within, but be prepared to act alone if necessary, not to occupy the region but to search and destroy within it.

Have you learned nothing from the past four years, Reed?! Your analysis even contradicts itself. We've been searching and destroying in Iraq for some time now, haven't we? And yet as you yourself admit, "our presence in Iraq catalyzes support for Al Qaeda specifically and terrorism generally". As with Iraq, so with Pakistan. For every evildoer you destroy in Pakistan there will be twenty new evildoers, newly enraged and headed toward the locus of the fighting to evict the US invaders who are "scouring" it. (And I suppose there is not much point in reminding you that Pakistan is a nuclear armed country.)

I would have thought that by now people were pretty well clued in on the fact that "al Qaedism" is a cause or movement of some kind - it's not a self-contained army or well-defined bunch bunch of guys that you can defeat simply by identifying them all and killing them - including by the flypaper method. It's a jihadist reaction to foreign presence, one with certain modern elements and influences, but rooted in tradition as well.

In fact, Al Qaeda could change the geopolitical alignment of power and wealth. I know it's hard for you guys in the board rooms to understand and believe that fact. Capitalists and kings always underestimate the power of popular movements until it's too late. But what al Qaeda and its ilk feed on, the source of their power, are provocative foreign military interventions, political meddling, cultural imperialism, anti-Muslim hostility, and economic domination and carpetbagging.

The exacerbation of any one of these factors provides another piece of incendiary fuel that allows the jihadist movement to win allies and to burn off another layer of the protective coating that shields the current Middle East power structure from popular frustration.

Most people in the Middle East do not want to live under the kind of government al Qaeda and kindred Salafist groups propose. (At least so far they don't, but perhaps they have not yet heard about the Reed Hunt plan for more American scouring.) But Arab and Muslim people will have much more success holding the line themselves against this radical reformationist movement if we get our meddling, imperialist backsides out of there and stop undercutting the middle at every turn. We have to avoid the American compulsion to treat every problem as something calling for a pro-active and interventionist Let's Fix It approach, and to stop making things worse by compromising the natural regional capacity to resist extremism.

I'm getting so tired of having to resist Bush and the brutally frank and militaristic, neoconservative form of US imperialism, while at the same time fending off American liberals. Sometimes the liberals treat us to their kindler, gentler "soft power" and "smart power" imperialism. These are just the more delicate distaff consorts of the ugly conquerors. Then in other case, like this one, they show that the ir main criticisms of Bushism are merely operational ones.

I was thinking the same thing.

After all, if as Hersh's piece indicates, we are secretly funding allies of Al Qaeda in Lebanon it wouldn't be nice to track down and stop our friends friends.

I read this morning that:

The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly." "So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today. . . . He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden.

That's the ticket, just like the Constitution is just a "god damn piece of paper" the World Trade Center is just a god damn smoldering hole in the ground. We don't need to seek justice for its victims. Just let the Saudi bad guy slip away. That is not exactly in the best American tradition, nor is it in the best interests of the U.S. --the House of Saud, maybe, but not the U.S.

The casual but transcendent evil that is the Bush administration is unparalleled in American history.

Ron Byers

I don't know, Dan K. Lots of people, including Al Gore and Obama, who opposed the invasion of iraq favored the war in Afghanistan and didn't consider it imperialism.

Two things intrigued me about Rich's article, and neither pertained to whether we should redeploy to Afghanistan, since Rich didn't discuss whether it's a good idea. One was the assertion that an attack on America is more likely than before. It's yet another thing to worry, like the outcome in Iraq, that will land on the desk of the next president, so it's a political problem for liberals as well as a threat to American security: we need to get the political blame machine going against Bush now, to be sure the GOP doesn't then tarnish the Democratic president with the outcome. I realize I've said this before with reference to the Nixon, Carter, Reagan succession, and again it doesn't mean I necessarily seek a military response.

Second, I'm used to thinking that Bush/Cheny were so intent on Iraq from day 1 in office that they blew off Al Qaeda, and the usual insider accounts seem to agree. Rich, if I read him correctly, seems to say the opposite: they started talking up Iraq to distract people the moment they found their incompetency stumbling in rounding up bin Laden, much as someone might argue that talk now if Iran is to distract from a failure. Any opinions on which direction causation really ran?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

The war in Iraq, if it was worth doing, it was only worth doing to get rid of Saddem and his Baath Nazis. However, Al Qaeda is not just some amorphous movement. It is a sizable and wealthy group of Sunni Jihadists who were well trained in the war with the Soviet Union and have had enormous financing by the Saudis and a great deal of support by the Pakistanis.

If anything the U.S. has both been conned by the our "allies" and unclear what we are really more worried about Pakistan's nuclear weapons or Al Qaeda terrorism. Al Qaeda terrorism really has its origins in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood as does movements in Algeria and Hamas. It is also aid by Pakistan's emnity toward India.

The failure of the Middle East is that the various governmental leaders have suppressed virtually all but Mosque based opponents. They have given reign to the Islamic extermist while eliminating any liberal movements. For most of this time, since Roosevelt, the U.S. has had the policy you largely favor. It has bought the oil, made sure Israel was not exterminated and left the Arabs to govern themselves. The result has been that the U.S. is identified with the House of Saud and Mubarak and the various other goverments.

There is no easy solution that is so wanted. However, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda killed Americans in Africa, the Gulf and in the United States because it is in the way of his grand design. The notion that we can stand aside and be safe I fear will never be born out.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Lots of people, including Al Gore and Obama, who opposed the invasion of Iraq favored the war in Afghanistan and didn't consider it imperialism.

In 2001, it wasn't imperialism. We had the support of most of the world and perhaps even a majority of Afghanis. And we intended (at least publicly) to put Afghanistan on the rails to modernity.

But after trying to cheap our way through Afghanistan (while spending mebbe a trillion dollars in Iraq for nothing), leaving the Taliban bruised but unbeaten and now resurgent and gaining followers and territory every day, standing pat on our choice of Karzai as mayor of Kabul and little else, not making serious efforts to bring the warlords into the government, not rebuilding the place, etc., etc., it begins to look like imperialism. Not the imperialism of the British in India, but the imperialism of ruination and chaos, the evident strategy of Bush and the claque of corporatists and neocons who put the tapes into the back of his head.

Re: I know it's hard for you guys in the board rooms to understand and believe that fact. Capitalists and kings always underestimate the power of popular movements until it's too late.

Al Qaida is not a "popular" movement any more than the IRA or the Red Brigades were. It is a clique of psychopaths and fanatics. It has no economic agenda and its politco-religious agenda is based on a fantasy world that makes the "Lord of the Rings" look like a serious portrait of reality. Moreover its principle target is not America or even the West in general, but rather the Muslim world itself, which it wants to rule according to some make-believe "pure" form of Islam which would have the Prophet himself spinning in his grave. That the Muslim world has no wish to embrace its vision the fanatics pass off as due to the machinatiosn of evil rulers and the corruption of the West; hence its attacks against the West are intended mainly as political theater, not as a serious attempt to destroy or vanquish.

In the face of the immensity of our foreign policy disaster, conversations about what we should be doing instead seem almost beside the point to me these days.  Maybe I've just allowed myself to get so overwhelmed by the idiocy of it all that I'm missing the point? 

When Atrios talks about the uselessness of pundits' "pony plans" for our involvement in Iraq, I always think, that's true, but it's also true that if pressuring the administration to get out of Iraq were actually successful, we wouldn't get the critics' pony plan for leaving Iraq, either.  We'd get the Bush administration's plan for leaving Iraq.  Which... gah, I don't even want to think about it.  (None of which is to say that I think it's wrong to pressure the administration to get out of Iraq -- but just sayin'.)

Step one to making things better is getting these guys out of office.  The other stuff seems like putting the cart before the horse, to me.

I really don't think the history is that mysterious any more, John.

The administration came into power having it in for Iraq, but 9/11 gave them a way of connecting those aims to an expanded regional project aimed at solving a lot of US and Israeli problems at once. 9/11 suddenly delivered an energized and made-to-order constituency to the White House doorstep, built for fulfilling the wildest dreams of key administration players.

And back at the very beginning of the "War on Terror", we know that the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies were erroneously convinced that the only really dangerous terrorist groups were those that benefitted from "state sponsorship". Those were the only groups that had "global reach." It was simply unthinkable to them that a group could successfully attack our precious towers and Pentagon without benefit of state-centered planning, intelligence and organization.

This prejudice made the administration, and lots of other Americans, fertile ground for Laurie Mylroie-style legends about dark connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, and for Michael Ledeen's idiotic and paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories about the Iranian "Terror Masters", directing the entire Muslim terrorist effort against Israel and the US from Tehran.

So even to the extent that the administration honchos regarded terrorism itself as a significant problem, rather than just a useful pretext for a US imperial power grab and structural makeover in the Middle East, they were disposed to think that the proper response to terrorism was to target Iraq and Iran - whom the imagined to be the "source" of the whole problem.

And I think we know very well from the historical record that from the first hours following 9/11, the administration was determined to attack Iraq and beyond. The reason they shifted away from the chase for Bin Laden after Afghanistan was because they simply didn't think Bin Laden was very important in the grand scheme of things, especially if they were able to get all those "state sponsors".
For the administration, the point of Afghanistan was partly to break up the training camps, but even more to punish and eradicate the Taliban regime for its support for anti-American enterprises like al Qaeda, and thereby send a message to the whole region. I think it is clear that from the outset they conceived Afghanistan as just one step in a broad regional campaign to punish and overpower one regime after another. As far as they were concerned, Afghanistan was done.

What is Frank Rich's evidence for the claim that the administration only got interested in whipping up excitement for an attack on Iraq in the aftermath of their failure to get Bin Laden? It sounds to me like he is making it up. Rich has no less right to pen opinions about this subject than you and I do. But is it unfair to point out that his background for writing amout national security issues is as a drama critic, and not - say - a global security expert?

I think we need to reflect a bit on what is going on politically in establishment Democratic circles. Centrist Washington Democrats now find themselves saddled with a constituency that wants out of Iraq - and wants out yesterday. In many cases, these leaders lack the brains, courage or honesty needed to understand or say that our entire oil-and-Israel centered Middle East Policy is a big mistake and endangers American lives every day. And in many cases, they are not any less committed to this traditional and misguided policy than their Replublican opponents, and so withdrawing from Iraq conflicts with their own natural inclinations. And then of course the biggest kind of coward is the one who is obsessed about appearing to be weak. Such people always think they need to dress up any common sense opposition to war and conflict in some kind of hawkish garb.

But these Democrats do read the polls, and they know which way the political winds are blowing. So they are left flailing around for some sort of rationale for placating their constituencies, without really changing US orientation in the region. It is enough for a lot of rank and file Democrats that Iraq was an illegal and immoral war launched against people who weren't attacking us, and which has subsequently lead to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But that kind of explanation doesn't cut it in DC, so our "leaders" have to dream up some other explanation. People like Frank Rich and Reed Hunt are just trying to help them play that game by suggesting palusible-sounding, but ultimately phony rationales for pandering to their consituencies. According to Washington Democrats, we need to get out of Iraq:

1. ... so we can turn our attentions to the really big threat - Iran; OR

2. ... so we can turn our attentions to the really big threat - Bin Laden; OR

3. ... so we can turn our attentions to the really big threat - China; OR

4. so we can turn our attentions to the really big enemy - Venezuela/Cuba/North Korea/Micronesia, etc.

As you can perhaps tell I am so deeply disgusted with the piles of Washington BS that I am finding it increasingly difficult to participate constructively in this debate. For me, the really big threat is Washington. That's where live the people who are doing the most to put my familiy at risk. I'm not much interested in the cranking up anti-Bush blame machine to help give Democrats a free ride. I blame both parties for 9/11, and for the continuing danger they are creating for American citizens, including me an my family. Both parties are equally responsible for the Middle East policies of the past four decades. When it comes to their ostentatious professions of worry about al-Qaeda, I simply don't belive any of them. They are all just crass, stupid electioneers.

Russia, Dan, Russia! How can you possibly forget Russia as the new REALLY BIG THREAT!

(And, me, I'm wondering about Canada.)

I think, to beat the whole bunch at their own game, we do 2 things: 1) stop wasting our military in the middle east and 2) stop using about 40% of the gasoline we do right now. That last, by itself, will make everyone involved sit up, and take notice.

Sure, with all of the hundreds of billions dumped into it, they can probably just about atomize the entire middle east, all to basically get one guy, or, let him go, and plan for the future instead. That's kind of where the dems seem to be at with it, by not impeaching bush and instead planning for what happens after he and Darth Cheney exit, they think they've got a more sound and effective concept going forward, our own 'way forward', if you will, that keenly focuses on item 2 from above. An oil-pump-ectomy might be a painful and unsightly procedure at first, but the long-term gains to be made from not giving more money to the people behind it all is well, priceless.

Oh, and as for this N.O.:

(And, me, I'm wondering about Canada.)

All options are on the table.

Pakistan is more than happy to let it's fundamentalist nutcases trek off to fight the US/NATO. It gives the Jihad contingent something to do other than overthrowing Musharraf. Musharraf's 'deals' to stop cross border fighting have always been total public relations BS.

The supply of militant Islamists in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area is essentially inexhaustible. If there is a solution to this problem it is economic and social, invading Iraq was certainly not part of the solution.

This is what the world sees:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17163.htm... 

It contains several justifications for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the US.  The same could be said about several other nations,  but because of our loss of honor and prestige (thanks to Bush et al) it gets considerable head-nodding by the typical international reader. 

This is what we're up against.  Why we are up against it, considering the planetary support we had after 911, is 100% due to the Bush regime's malfeasance.

Impeachment is no longer an option; it is a necessity. 

Jan Knaus

Re: Both parties are equally responsible for the Middle East policies of the past four decades.

Yes, but those policies were not always benighted. Jimmy Carter played midwife to the Camp David accords, an opening whidch the Reagan administration soon put in the deep freeze. And Bill Clitnon moved Heaven and Earth to try to get a decent deal done between Israel and the Palestinians, an effort which Bush flushed down the nearest toilet the moment after he took his oath of office.

I don't really know, chuckie. But one thing I have been wondering about is how we might be able to use reform of the electoral college and state election rules to move toward a multiparty system similar to those of countries with parliamentary governments.

For example, suppose some candidate for a third party X could run on a firm and secure pledge to the voters that votes cast for that candidate in a given state would be dedicated to the vote totals of Party Y, unless Party X actually wins a plurality of the popular vote in the state.

And suppose further that if Party X does win the plurality, and its slate of electors is thus chosen to elect the president, that Party X still has the option of pledging (by legally binding commitment before the election) all of its electoral votes to Party X.

What kinds of state legal reforms would have to be enacted to allow such binding, pre-election pledges to be made?

Such a system would alow people to vote initially for a third party candidate "symbolically", without any risk that they would be wasting their votes. If their candidate actually pulls off a miracle win, that candidate gets the votes. If the candidate loses, the votes go to the preferred major party.

Over time, the third parties could be expected to grow in strength and deliverable votes, to develop coherent and powerful national organizations, and bargain pledges for political commitments from the other parties.

While Schoomaker erred in not acknowledging the important justice interests in apprehending Bin Laden and trying him for his crimes, his larger national security point is probably on target. And his saying it probably reveals something about what national security professionals who actually see the relevant intelligence really think of the legend of Bin Laden. There is no reason to think the capture or killing of the hermit Bin Laden will have any significant bearing one way or another on the US security picture. To suggest so is to play into the ignorant popular superstition that Bin Laden is somehow the general and mastermind of the United World Terrorist Conspiracy.

Some things seem pretty clear:
1. al-Queda remains a threat, and it is regaining operational capabilities it had lost after we moved into Afghanistan in 2001.
2. At the current level of taxation, the U.S. has the largest military it is currently willing to afford.
3. The single greatest vulnerability of the Bush Administration from the Right is from hawks who still want to get bin Laden, and who have come to see Iraq as both a distraction from the fight against al-Queda--and a losing one at that.
4. The Bush Administration is under increasing pressure from the American people to get out of Iraq.
Question--if these conclusions are correct, isn't the best way to both change U.S. policy on Iraq and to improve national security--not to mention shelter Democrats from being accused of being "against the troops"--be to focus public and legislative pressure on getting al-Queda, and the failure of the government to do so, and the reasons for the failure? Our current military can do only so much. If the pressure grows for action against al-Queda, Bush will be forced to draw forces down to redeploy them an Afghanistan.

We are frightened enough with Stockwell Day in the Ministry of Public Safety. Rick Mercer, I understand, is starting a referendum to call it the Ministry of Love.

After I identified Colonel By, a Canadian Forces friend promised to send black helicopters for me. A few days later, FedEx called to ask where they should deliver assorted Sea King parts.

Having sent us William Shatner and Pamela Anderson, have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? Admittedly, Mercer has suggested giving her the Ministry of Plenty.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Wasn't it Osama that chose the "far enemy" targeting

From what I've read you have that backwards. The "near-enemy/far-enemy" strategic thinking was born in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. When the Egyptian middle class turned against the jihadists after Sadat's assasination, instead of rising up in revolt with the jihadists, survivors like Zawahiri reasoned that the "far enemy" had to be pulled into an occupation so the masses would turn against the middle class. He didn't convince bin Laden until 97 or 98 that it was a strategy worth trying. Until then binLaden appears to have thought he could just make it too expensive for the U.S.  to remain in the Middle East by attacking us in one place after another. No real strategy to it in comparison to Zawahiri's. But, Zawahiri does not have the "legend" status that binLaden has carefully nurtured with his millions. And I agree that capturing and/or killing binLaden would break that "legend", and undermine the "near-enemy/far-enemy" strategic thinking.

Let's leave aside Frank Rich's "blinking red" column, which was entertaining as usual, and deal with the substantive misconceptions in your analysis.

First, to deal with Al Qaeda our army is still, horrifyingly, mostly in the wrong country. This calculated decision to respond to 9/11 by invading the wrong country remains to my mind the single worst aspect of the calamity of Iraq, despite the many bad aspects to choose from.

1. The military is at best a secondary tool in dealing with Al-Qaeda. The military will only be effective in confronting jihadists if the operations fit within a broader diplomatic strategy that can win over the "Muslim Street".

The question is much less whether or not the military is in the "wrong country", it is a question of what the heck is expected of the military in any country when their presence perpetuates the groundswell of discontent that feeds the jihadist movement - a point you certainly recognize.

2. The invasion of Iraq was not a "calculated decision to respond to 9/11". No, the calculated decision was to use 9/11 as a pretext to invading Iraq, something that had long been advocated by PNAC, for example.

Nothing has changed in the Administration's thinking on how to respond to terror. Indeed, if we were attacked again -- and most think that's a question of when and not if -- this Administration would consider invading Iran as a response.

3. Nothing has changed in your thinking either. See point 1 above re. the military.

4. Again, the Bushies would not "consider invading Iran as a response" - they would use it as a pretext to invading Iran, something they are already itching to do.

Second, our presence in Iraq catalyzes support for Al Qaeda specifically and terrorism generally. At this point ending our military presence in Iraq is a necessity in the war on terror.

5. I don't understand the generalization - I don't see how the occupation of Iraq increasingly validates terrorism in general. I agree that Bin Laden is boosted by the occupation, but his organization is not unique in its use of terrorism. Splinter-groups of the IRA, ETA, Kurdish separatists, Chechnyan guerillas, Hamas all use terrorism too - are their violent tactics also boosted by the occupation?

6. "War on terror". Please. Stop. Using. This. Meaningless. Term.

Third, despite the risks, we have to scour Pakistan for Al Qaeda and close Afghanistan off to its ragtag but dangerous members. To this end, we have to try to persuade Pakistan to take military action against the enemy within, but be prepared to act alone if necessary, not to occupy the region but to search and destroy within it.

7. Just checking here - is this you talking about Pakistan or Kissinger talking about Cambodia?

Fourth, we need to have the bluntest of conversations with the Saudis, saying that our dependence on your oil is going to end and our tolerance of some of your people's support for terror will end even sooner.

8. Okay, pull the other one. Sanctions against Saudi? Usurpation of OPEC? We're gonna go aggro on Tehran and Riyadh at the same time?

Seriously, we can't have a blunt conversation with Saudi at present. Bandar warned Bush before the Iraq invasion that overthrowing Saddam would solve one problem and create five more. One of those new problems is that we have close-to-zero leverage with the Kingdom.

And even if we tried, what price the Saudis unleash some bluntness of their own - as in, placing large weapons' orders with other countries; pricing oil in Euros; throwing some more cash and ordnance at the Sunni militias in Iraq.

Personally, I think the blunt conversation that needs to be held is with the DC establishment. I thought Jim Baker had talked some sense into Beltway, I hope Chuck Hagel can turn enough of the GOP, and I remain hopeful that Jim Webb can be the Dems' standard-bearer.

But hope isn't a strategy. Not when as a nation we are addicted to the use of disproportionate force to solve problems we don't understand. That's the system that's blinking red, and that's the one no-one talks about.

Idly musing about how words change, and when all approved when Teddy Roosevelt called the Presidency a "bully pulpit." *sigh*

A complex man who did much good, but also was the first President to think of the US in worldwide terms -- perhaps the colonialist terms of his day.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

But after trying to cheap our way through Afghanistan (while spending mebbe a trillion dollars in Iraq for nothing), leaving the Taliban bruised but unbeaten and now resurgent and gaining followers and territory every day...

Exactly, you can't beat the Taliban, you can only cause them to retreat for a while. By the way, George Bush was perfectly willing to allow the Taliban to continue ruling if they helped us get Osama, so much for the champion of democracy. The mistake we made in Afghanistan was kicking them out of power because then we can never allow them to regain power or, we lost. We went to Afghanistan to get Osama, not to change the government.

Bush should have used, money, the Northern Alliance and special ops to grab Osama. Kicking the Taliban out got us into a quagmire where we now have Osama AND the Taliban to deal with.

Damn we are outed. We assumed that those two plus Celine Dion would sap your will and destroy America with mass ennui.

global citizen

In the present case, to mushroom management.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

What justifies the nihilism, suicide and mass murder the Sunni Jihadis?

Since you didn't answer that I assume you really haven't an honest clue as to what the answer is. And with your "America is the only sane nation on the face of God's earth" outlook you never will get a clue.

Appreciate your response, but I don't agree with all your arguments around terrorism or its past or present use. Importantly, I think that by calling terrorism a philosophy rather than a tactic you are outlining a difference that in practice doesn't exist.

I also find it interesting that you argue that continuing the occupation increasingly validates the use of terrorism in the future - because those who argue against leaving Iraq use exactly the same argument. I happen to think both arguments are flawed, mainly because they make generic assumptions that fall apart when you look at organizations that have resorted to terrorism.

The point that people seem to miss is that groups that use terrorism do not use it as a first resort. For example, if you consider the whole history of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, jihadism is a relatively recent development. In fact, I would vouch that for every terrorist group that you could name, I could point to terrorism as a relatively late feature in their chronology.

As a result, I don't think the occupation of Iraq makes a jot of difference to the future use of terrorism. Terrorism - however we wish to define it - has a history as long and complicated as political movements themselves, and our presence in Iraq, and our departure whenever that occurs, won't change the analytical frame within which decisions about the use of terror will in future be taken.

I would strongly recommend you pick up the Long Walk to Freedom, and read how Mandela and his ANC colleagues discussed the feasibility of terrorism. They debated the unpredictable effects it could have of local and world opinion; they considered the impact it would have on South Africa post-apartheid; they worried about the National Party backlash. But it had to be an option, and the ANC had to be ready to use it if the struggle continued to escalate.

Now I fully accept that when you have a movement that through a particular reading of a religious text find honor and justification for committing terrorist acts, you face a pretty thorny problem in confronting this type of movement. But they are a thoroughly atypical terrorist organization, and we'd be foolish to think that defeating Bin Ladenism will mean the defeat of terrorism.

In general, I think the effectiveness of terrorism is over-rated, though this is in many respects similar to the way we over-rate the effectiveness of military force. These two misconceptions might reinforce each other to an extent, but I rather think they won't as people around the world tire of the violence and start taking matters into their own hands in terms of marginalizing extremists. At least I hope we will. The alternative is facing a large terror threat or a small one.

But there will never be no threat, because there will always be people finding justification for the use of violent tactics.

If the purpose of warfare is to force the opponent to obey your will, and asymmetric warfare involves using a form of warfare for which your opponent is unprepared, then I argue that Gandhi-style nonviolent resistance is still a form of warfare. I'll go into more detail in a blog post.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

No, I don't think I measure terrorism from the standpoint of the opponent alone. Marighella is perhaps the most emphatic about the use of terror to help control one's own side. Viet Cong armed propaganda had social control as a major objective. Mao's guerillas had more of a carrot-and-stick approach to the people who provided the sea in which his forces swam.

The near-enemy/far-enemy theory (and controversy) in al-Qaeda is focused on the masses in already Muslim countries.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]