Eyes Off The Prize? Losing Focus In The War On Terror
	found on The Guardian written by FlipperBoy, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 15 Oct 11:21am
		Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian writes: The world has every right to feel angry. Not just with the perpetrators of the Saturday night massacre in Bali, but with the governments who vowed to wage a "war on terror" which would make attacks like it less likely. In the light of the recent outrage in Bali, is the attack on Iraq a red herring in terms of it's real impact on terror groups? Have the intelligence services of the US have been so focused on Iraq that they are redirecting resources away from more the far more pressing pursuit of Al-Qaeda?

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 24 commentsbest: 3 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Vendetta   by NH4       at Tue 15 Oct 11:28am score of 1     Saddam tried to kill Poppy, so Jr. wants to kill Saddam. What good is a War on Terrorism if it doesn't justify what you were planning to do anyway?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: Vendetta   by ExciteableBoy       at Thu 17 Oct 12:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     If you honestly believe that's the president's only justification for invading Iraq, do you really think that nobody in the entire government would refuse to go along? Do you think the president has that much power? Are you that paranoid?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Al-Qaeda   by Bearpaw       at Tue 15 Oct 11:54am score of 1.5 disingenuous     Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are much more useful to the US admin as boogiemen than they ever would be as captives. Note that many groups/people the US admin doesn't like have -- we are told -- "suspected links to al-Qaeda". Given the amorphous and often overlapping nature of militant groups, it be astonishing if there weren't links of some sort. Shall we play "Six Degress of Osama bin Laden"? Hell, the CIA has "links" to bin Laden, via Pakistan's ISI. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Al-Qaeda   by MikeD       at Tue 15 Oct 6:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Hell, the CIA has "links" to bin Laden, via Pakistan's ISI. Why go through Pakistan when a direct connection (middle of 2nd ¶ for fact-checkers) is available? Shall we play "Six Degress of Osama bin Laden"? Hmmmm, maybe somebody should contact the people at UV's CompSci program and get them working on "The Oracle of bin Laden at Virginia".... Then again, maybe that's not a good idea. -MKD   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  This is a surprise?   by Yosarian       at Tue 15 Oct 12:26pm score of 1 disingenuous     I don't even think that Bush is stupid enough to believe he can wage war on a method of waging war. He doesn't care about Osama, and never really has, because Osama has no real property. Iraq has a lot of property and W wants it, so he's going to get it. Why should his buddies have to work when they can just plunder?       That, and isn't it better to always have an enemy around the corner who inspires hate and fear in your malleable populace? And besides that, we've always been at war with Eastasia. An 'o' for an 'i' leaves everyone blond.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Re: This is a surprise?   by renny0       at Fri 18 Oct 7:09am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 3     Iraq has a lot of property and W wants it, so he's going to get it. Why should his buddies have to work when they can just plunder? Do you really believe this? If the Bushs wanted the "property" -- why didn't they take it last time, when Iraq surrendered? That doesn't seem to be the way we work -- otherwise we would own Afghanistan, Japan, and Germany. Say what you may about him, and so will I -- I believe George W. Bush has good intentions. I don't know whether or not we should go to war with Iraq -- but I do trust the president if he makes that decision. A person would have to be truly evil to kill as many innocent civilians as will likely die in a war if they had no good purpose. Again, say what you will about George W. Bush, but I do not believe he is evil. I think he is doing his best to do his job as president.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: This is a surprise?   by Yosarian       at Fri 18 Oct 12:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I never said Bush is evil, though I do think he lacks a moral compas and is surrounded by people who obscure and obfuscate the facts, both to him and to the american public, and I don't think he is intelligent enough to know he's being flim-flammed. That said, this war is about reelection and property. The CIA, the agency in charge of figuring out this whole terrorism thing, has said repeatedly and emphatically that iraq is not currently dangerous and would not strike out at the US unless saddam was in danger of losing power. Iraq, compared to the other countries in the 'axis of evil', is a soft target. North korea almost handed us our asses and iran is large and very hostile. Iraq is the least dangerous of the three, but it is the one we are attacking. Maybe, though, bush is only interested in protecting the iraqi civilians? If that's the case, then why wouldn't he invade saudi arabia, or israel, or russia for that matter, where they are torturing thousands over this chechniya thing? Well, his buddies are already getting rich off of the sauds, or at least his handlers' buddies, the russians are too tough, and the israelis don't have anything we'd want and they are a hard target.       So why are we attacking iraq? We're attacking iraq because they are relatively easy to take out and they have oil that americans don't control or profit from. Not only that, but the attacks will drastically increase the risk to the american public according to the CIA and will also require the killing of a goodly number of iraqis in urban fighting, iraqis whose only sin is being male and iraqi.       Is bush evil? I don't know him well enough to make that determination. Based on the best available data, from the people who give bush the same best available data, though, this war would be nothing but. An 'o' for an 'i' leaves everyone blond.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Preventing Bali ... how?   by profwhat       at Tue 15 Oct 1:14pm score of 2 astute     As the Freedland article says, it's difficult to see how, exactly, we could have prevented the Bali explosion. He complains that there we things we could have done that "would at least have obstructed the path of the men who plotted evil last weekend." This is probably correct. We haven't done everything conceivable to stop terrorism yet. But as I understand Freedland, he doesn't accuse the U.S. of losing focus. Instead, he mentions two specific things we should have done but have not done: "a new alternative energy strategy, aimed eventually at weaning the west off oil," and "devoting serious political muscle" to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. These might be nice things to do, but their connection to Bali seems remote. There's an argument (one that I do not buy) that alternative energy and solving the conflict in Israel will make Al Qaeda less mad at us and save us from future attacks. But I do not see how they would "have obstructed the path" of last weekend's bombers. The only thing that would have obstructed their path would have been more police in the right places.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Preventing Bali ... how?   by marduk_kur       at Tue 15 Oct 6:37pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 4     There's an argument (one that I do not buy) that alternative energy and solving the conflict in Israel will make Al Qaeda less mad at us and save us from future attacks. Well, the first part is believable- Al Qaeda would be less interested in attacking us if we were less involved in the part of the world that they are most interested in. As to whether being less interested = we won't get attacked by terrorists- that's not very credible. But making our utmost effort to reduce our dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic, and helping to bring peace between warring groups (especially the Israelis and Palestinians) are laudable goals regardless of the effect on terrorism. It's pretty cool that we could do the right thing and it may help to reduce the frequency of asymmetric attacks on us as well. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Preventing Bali ... how?   by Violator       at Wed 16 Oct 1:35am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 7     You seem to blithely expect that people will up sticks and go back to selling falafel once their immediate vociferously professed line of propaganda is assuaged. So, the US converts miraculously to eco-friendly wind and solar and leaves the Middle East alone. We should expect Al Quaeda to declare to the world "By almighty Allah the infidels have left the holy lands of Islam! The corrupt infidels are now OK, we'll be popping round for rum and yub-nub this arvo, all's well, pip pip ole chap?" Or like any other extremist movement I've ever seen, the members will continue finding excuses to go to war because the leaders are only important men (at least within their organisation) as long as the organisation exists. Because admitting victory (or defeat) is removing the raison d'etre for Al Quaeda, there will never really be any end to it. Certainly we should not see "simply" going green, weaning our dependence on oil and leaving the middle east as a potentially bloodless, easy resolution which gets us off the hook. You also talk of asymmetric attacks - I take it you mean, 3,000 americans dead for maybe a few hundred terrorists bombed to dog chow in Afghanistan? 200 people in Bali for no terrorists? Is the asymmetry a function of the evil of the terrorists, or is it perhaps miscalculated if you consider the US racked up a fairly considerable lead in the Gulf War and continues ticking the counter over every time it bombs Iraq? You may not be counting such deaths on the score card of "our" side, but the terrorists certainly are. Maybe it's our ignorance to the point of view of the terrorists which leads us to believe so much in the unfairness of terror as opposed to no-fly zones... Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Preventing Bali ... how?   by profwhat       at Wed 16 Oct 7:57am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 7     But making our utmost effort to reduce our dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic, and helping to bring peace between warring groups (especially the Israelis and Palestinians) are laudable goals regardless of the effect on terrorism. I agree. But Freedland is trying too hard to frame an argument about Israel and oil around the war on terrorism issue, when the truth is that those two issues are only remotely connected with terrorism. I think there's a big temptation to try to hook all sorts of issues onto the war-against-terrorism train, perhaps because the war is taking up all of the oxygen in the political theater at the moment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Preventing Bali ... how?   by semonyenko       at Wed 16 Oct 10:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     While I agree that cutting the West's dependence on Middle East oil won't suddenly make al Qaeda go away, it will have one very important impact on them - it will dry up a large source of their funding. They are currently getting a lot of money from rich Saudis (and others in the Middle East), who wouldn't be rich if we weren't buying oil from them. Unless we switch to an energy source that is based on sand, those people won't have anything to sell us. And so they won't have any money with which to pay off the terrorists to not attack their non-fundamentalist regimes. The Israeli-Palestinian angle is interesting because it would deprive the local autocrats in the Middle East of their political cover. These governments love to point their peoples' attention at the plight of the Palestinians, because it distracts the public from the abuses of those in power in their own countries. If Sharon and Arafat make nice, the people of Saudi Arabia might turn their attention, and their hatred, to the House of Saud. Which, suddenly lacking a stable basis for their economy (see above), will be in deep doo-doo very quickly. What we would be left with would be a bunch of poor, fundamentalist countries in the Middle East, where everyone yells "death to America," but no one has any money to make that threat real. And we get to tell them to, quite literally, "pound sand." But of course this will never happen, since the plutocracy in the U.S. is making too much money off of our dependence on oil to want to rock the boat. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Preventing Bali ... how?   by jcowart       at Wed 16 Oct 5:08am score of 2 nuanced   in reply to comment 9     No, they wouldn't just give up and go home, they'd then turn their ire on the autocratic regimes we're currently propping up in the Middle East...which, sans-oil we probably wouldn't be doing any longer. So what does that mean? Probably lots of bombs in the various secular nations in the Middle East and lots more in India. Is that a net gain? Probably for us, as we seem to be able to overlook brown people being blown up a lot more easily than people with a shade less melanin....and if a few monarchies get toppled and replaced with religious extremism, who cares?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Asymmetrical Warfare   by Notyou       at Wed 16 Oct 7:42am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 9     Not to speak for Marduk here, but asymmetrical warfare is the term used by the Defense establishment to describe conflict between forces of vastly different capabilities. Al Qaeda can't directly challenge the US so instead must use indirect tactics -- ie, terrorism. The US can't rely on its old industrial warfare strategy (attrition) to defeat Al Qaeda -- and is in the process of developing new strategies to combat the threat. In any case, lessening our dependence on a single strategic resource (oil), and the international entanglements that necessarily follow from that dependency is sound policy, whether or not it helps directly in the conflict with Al Qaeda. Me neither.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Our Ignorance?   by Wolfetone       at Wed 16 Oct 7:45am score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 9     Maybe it's our ignorance to the point of view of the terrorists which leads us to believe so much in the unfairness of terror as opposed to no-fly zones... What the fuck are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to equate a terrorist attack with our no fly zone policy in Iraq, which is designed to protect Iraqi citizens from their government? The only time we fire on the Iraqi's is when they fire on us and the only reason we have a no fly zone was because Saddam was murdering his own people. Why the hell would I care why some ignorant fuck thinks protecting people from being murdered is the same as murdering people?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Preventing Bali ... how?   by marduk_kur       at Wed 16 Oct 8:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     You seem to blithely expect that people will up sticks and go back to selling falafel once their immediate vociferously professed line of propaganda is assuaged. Didn't I specifically say in my post that such an outcome wasn't very likely? If we do fewer of the things that make terrorist groups upset, the frequency of terrorist attacks on US interests should lessen. That's not the same thing at all as "we should stop doing what they don't like and they'll leave us alone." If the things terrorists want us to stop are things we should probably stop anyway, it's win-win for us- even if it doesn't make us safer from terrorism it's still at least one win. As for asymmetry, as NotYou pointed out it just means that technology makes it easy for traditionally weak people to make things go boom, and harder for traditionally strong powers to fight back. Asymmetric warfare is the art of turning your weaknesses into strengths, and magnifying whatever strengths you do have through careful planning and technology. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Imagining promises from America?   by TRACKYOURPOSITION       at Tue 15 Oct 1:33pm score of 1     Which brings us to the second prong of the war on terror many of us thought we signed up to a year ago.... That meant, among other things, a new alternative energy strategy, aimed eventually at weaning the west off oil. No longer would the US and others need to manipulate the Middle East just to safeguard their petrol supply. They could let the peoples of the Arab world choose their own governments for once. The US would move its troops out of Saudi Arabia, healing one of the sores Bin-Laden most likes to inflame: the presence of "infidels" on holy Muslim soil. And Washington would pick up where Clinton left off, devoting serious political muscle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Genuine movement in that area would instantly rob the Islamists of one of their greatest recruiting pitches. WTF? When the heck did Washington promise to do anything like that? Did this guy confuse Plastic suggestions on how to fight the war on terror with actual promised government policies? Was there some sort of declaration of War on Oil Dependency that I forgot about? Did Tony Blair seriously misrepresent Bush's intentions in trying to justify his support of America--I've certainly never heard Bush talking seriously about any sort of make-all-Muslims-like-us campaign? Not that I'm saying he's proposing a bad thing here, but I don't know where he gets off thinking the failure to implement his particular ideas for fighting terror is some kind of great betrayal or deception. Nor did governments ever predict that every single act of terror would be stopped. Such would be impossible. Some governemnts have declared their intention to attempt to stop as much terrorism as they could--and this guy provides little evidence that they have failed at this objective. In any event, the idea that the United States shares any guilt with the perpetrators is supremely offensive.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Freedland hasn't done his homework   by Brian Jones       at Tue 15 Oct 2:21pm score of 1.5 nuanced     The US sent Colin Powell to Indonesia barely a couple months ago, at which time he did the standard diplomatic shuffle -- it's more the ambassador's job to point out the uncomfortable information. In connection with Powell's trip, Indonesia's foreign minister went on the record as saying problem? what problem? Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda said after meeting Powell that his country will "strengthen its capacity to deal with terrorism" and denied it is a hotbed of Islamic extremism. "We don't believe that Indonesia will be the future Afghanistan," he said. Oops. Anyway, now Powell is free to speak his mind about Indonesia's inability to snap out of it. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Logic?   by lucas_m       at Thu 17 Oct 6:07am score of 1     As the war on drugs and poverty have proven before, waging war on a concept, on an idea or on a way of life is useless. But since Bush has decided to fight this war anyway, I'm astonished at some of the choices that have been made. The focus on Iraq for instance misses backing. The only terrorist attacks Saddam can be charged with are assassinations of Iraqi dissidents abroad. Hardly reasons for the United States to be afraid of Iraqi terrorist attacks. (Note, the gas-attacks on Kurds are atrocities in their own rights, but they don't qualify as international terrorism, which as I understand it correctly, is the enemy in the war on terror.) The Axis of Evil-rhetorics are equally nonsensical. Why Choose North-Korea, Iraq and Iran as evil states when all the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi-Arabian, except for an Egyptian? Where's the logic? Moi, j'aime ricocher.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  It's not the oil.   by ExciteableBoy       at Thu 17 Oct 1:32pm score of 1     A lot of people have brought up the fact that we're "going to war for oil" and that we need to come up with alternate energy sources to reduce our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. The inconvenient fact is that there aren't any feasible alternate energy sources right now. Sure, there are some avenues that look promising, but none of them are going to offer an alternative to gasoline in the near future, if ever. It's not our government's fault that this technology just doesn't exist. It's not Saddam Hussein's fault either, but it doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding of the situation to pretend that there's an alternative when there's not. Right now, I need gas to get to work, my employer needs it to get work done, and the stores where I shop need it to get their products delivered. The same goes for everybody in the developed world. The oil exporters in the Middle East have (unwisely, IMO) neglected to develop any viable industries. Hell, they don't even refine their own oil, they let outsiders build and run the refineries. Their economies are completely dependent on the demand for oil. All the world's economies are dependent on a stable oil market. As much as everybody enjoys trashing large companies, especially oil companies, they employ a lot of people and they fill an almost universal need. The assumption that American oil companies stand to benefit from an invasion of Iraq fails to consider that Saddam wants to sell his oil as badly as they want to buy it. An invasion could damage or destroy Iraq's oil infrastructure and cost billions of dollars to restore oil production. Simply lifting the sanctions preventing Saddam Hussein from exporting oil would give US oil companies access to plenty of cheap oil, without any of the risks that go along with invasion. Hussein has repeatedly asked that the sanctions be lifted, and the American Petroleum Institute has lobbied for same thing. If President Bush was as influenced by oil companies as some people think, he would have lifted the sanctions by now, and stopped pursuing an invasion of Iraq, since talk of war is one of the things that's keeping the stock market down, and corporations are just as eager to see the market improve as any of us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  It's one thing to say we depend upon oil   by halfwit       at Thu 17 Oct 2:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     It's something else to mostly ignore the alternatives. And with the exception of paying meaningless lip service to other options, US politicians have ignored them. Could the US economy be weaned from petroleum dependence in ten years? No, unless by weaning you mean stopped cold turkey and crushed in the process. But is it feasible to have three, five, or perhaps even ten percent of our energy come from alternative sources in the same period? Yes. Will it happen? No. This is childish impatience on a national scale. Since this noble goal is not a few short weeks or years away, we don't even bother. We sit and lament our dependence on oil, just like we did twenty years ago and probably just like we'll do twenty years in the future. It's exactly like a sedentary obese person that secretly aspires to be a bodybuilder. They spend their first week on a strict diet and exercise routine. Despite their efforts, they only lose one half of a pound of fat and add one pound to their bench press. Discouraged, they quit. Five years later, they try again. The same thing happens. Their enthusiasm burns out because of the apparent enormity of their goal, and they stop. Twenty years and many aborted attempts to become fit later, they are no closer to their private dream than day one. They are a lot closer to sleep apnea, joint problems, diabetes, and heart disease.       But the truth is, adding one pound to your bench press per week and losing one half a pound of fat per week is a very reasonable recipe for long term success. Even at half that progress rate, in ten years you will be thin and incredibly strong.       As much as I wish (and will vote) otherwise, in thirty years I bet the US will be no more independent from foreign fuel than it is today.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Oh yeah, It's the oil.   by semonyenko       at Thu 17 Oct 4:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     The assumption that American oil companies stand to benefit from an invasion of Iraq fails to consider that Saddam wants to sell his oil as badly as they want to buy it. And this comment fails to consider that deals have already been signed for the sale of Iraqi oil after sanctions have lifted - to non-U.S. companies, particularly Russian ones. U.S. oil companies stand to gain from the abrogation of these deals by a post-Saddam government, which would open the Iraqi oil fields to them. Yep, this Iraq thing is about oil. And keeping public attention away from the economy and corporate scandals during the run-up to the election. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  We want it, but not under Saddam   by Smallest       at Thu 17 Oct 4:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     GWB and co. are worried about having 20% of the world's oil reserves under Saddam's control. Sure, we could buy it from him. But we don't trust him not to cut us off on a whim, or to hold his oil hostage. He's proven himself to be a crazy and ruthless bastard and they don't want to take the chance of becoming dependent on his oil. They'd much prefer it if someone else controlled that oil. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  How do you stop terrorism?   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Fri 18 Oct 7:52am score of 1     In the light of the recent outrage in Bali, is the attack on Iraq a red herring in terms of it's real impact on terror groups? Have the intelligence services of the US have been so focused on Iraq that they are redirecting resources away from more the far more pressing pursuit of Al-Qaeda? I've cited it before, but it's quite relevant to this argument--the IRA's famous statement after the 1984 Brighton bombing: "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." The point is that terrorist organizations are always on the offensive, and thus have the initiative over the forces of order. They're too weak to defeat the security forces in conventional war or even in guerrilla operations, but through terrorist actions they can make symbolic strikes a ttheir stronger opponents. The bombings in Bali were indeed an outrage, but it's not really fair to be too hard on the intelligence services of the U.S.--or even those of Indonesia, which spent much of the past year sticking its head in the sand regarding potential terrorist threats on its soil. The Bali bombing and other recent incidents may actually reflect the extent to which the intelligence and security services have succeeded--note that the target was a "soft" civilian target rather than an embassy or military facility. That isn't going to make any of the victims of such attacks feel better--but it's an unpleasant reality when all it takes to kill a lot of people is motivation and a few pounds of explosives. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]