The Art of Politics

Your 15 Minutes Are UP !!!

Someone tell Richard Clarke, please...

In his new battle against irrelevancy, good old Richard Clarke has resurfaced to remind us he's still metabolizing oxygen somewhere.

It's time to dismantle this charlatan.

Now that the presidential campaign is behind us, it's time for the nation's political leaders to recognize what many experts in the counterterrorism field have been saying for a long time: America needs to change course in the war on terror.

Why sure, I mean now that we've been kept safe for over three years and taken the battle to the enemy, let's change that successful course. This guy navigates policy like Fred Noonan.

International jihadist groups have conducted twice as many attacks since Sept. 11, 2001 as they did in the three years prior to that date.

Duh - it's a WAR, tool. The US faced more attacks in the three years after Pearl Harbor than they did for the three preceding years - does that tell us ANYTHING useful? The real question is where are the battles taking place? In New York, or Fallujah? I'll take Fallujah... (sounds like a new musical off-broadway).

Jihadist membership has increased over the past three years, and leaders who have been killed or captured have been replaced.

Really? I mean is there a membership list? Because that might be an important find... And how can you bemoan that leaders have been killed and captured and yet are replaced? Does this argue AGAINST killing or capturing them?

Anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world has been exacerbated by the war in Iraq, which also created a sanctuary for jihadists.

Alright, let's tackle this one-two punch of stupidity head on. First, that we've inflamed the "Arab street" - this meme that is always trotted out to argue against acting against anyone wearing a kufi. And yet, for all of the talk, the Arab street doesn't run with blood. Does the Arab street differentiate between taking out "legitimate" US targets in Afghanistan as opposed to "illegitimate" ones in Iraq?

As to making Baghdad a haven for terrorists, two points - first, the biggest terrorist is sitting in a 10 by 10 gray-green metal cell with damp, stinking walls and a wooden plank for bed. Secondly - why yes, there are more terrorist attacks in Iraq. Guess why? Because Iraq was a totalitarian police state under Hussein - just as there are more terrorist attacks in Russia now, because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian police state. Let's reinstate the Politburo and Hussein post haste...

It seems clear the United States has failed to eliminate or even seriously weaken the violent Islamist threat.

It DOES? How is that clear? It would seem to me to be most UNCLEAR at this point. And were we supposed to, three years later, have eliminated the violent Islamist threat? I'm all ears for the "Eliminate Islamist Threat in 3 Years, or your money back!" program.

Building on the commission's recommendations, a task force that I assembled and chaired for the Century Foundation has developed a blueprint for action to defeat the jihadists.

I knew the topic would turn to Clarke sooner or later. Enough about me and my task force... what do you think of me and my task force?

Clarify the threat: To be effective, we must have consensus about the nature of the problem facing us. That threat is not terrorism, or even all terrorist organizations, but rather the jihadist terrorists who seek to hijack Islam and use violence to replace existing governments with nondemocratic theocracies.

Wrong - dead wrong. If you expect to enlist the support of others, you can't just go after SOME terrorists. Clarke is like the stupid stormtrooper in Mos Eisley, where Bin Laden comes along in a landspeeder and waves his hand saying "These aren't the terrorists you're looking for". If the United States expects to enlist the help of others, we must declare all terror as the target. While Islamist fundamentalism is the predominant source, it'd be nice to be able to tell Spain, for instance, that we support them in their battle against terrorist actions by the Basque terrorists in ETA, rather than just say we aren't worried about THOSE terrorists, but by the way how about a hand against Al Qaeda?

Engage in the battle of ideas: In addition to countering the jihadist terrorists with law enforcement, intelligence and military measures, we must erode support for them in the Islamic world.

This is outright naivete - that somehow, the United States isn't propagandizing itself enough. This is self-delusion, to think that your opponent simply hasn't thought enough about their options to come to an informed choice. War is about what it always is about - power. Power over land and lord. Does anyone believe the well-educated Osama Bin Laden just didn't hear enough for us to win the "battle of ideas" with him? Gimme a break, Clarke, no wonder you got relegated to looking at computer porn and spamming in couterintelligence, you don't appear to have the knack for calling a spade a spade here. They want to kill us - you aren't gonna talk them to death, Richard.

Provide assistance to Islamic nations: Although jihadist terrorists are often not poor or uneducated, they use the underprivileged populations in some Islamic nations as one base for their support and as a lever for undermining national stability.

When did using the uneducated and poor to political ends become novel? Good grief, what do you think the Democrat party is? Clarke wants to hitch his wagon to the axiom that rich states don't support terror, and he's right - not out of any idealism, but because they have too much to lose to risk it. But you aren't going to buy your way out of this fight.

Tailor strategies for key countries: The United States must have detailed and integrated policies for enhancing stability and democratic forces in key Islamic nations, including Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq.

This seems like offering up the obvious to me. But one concern - do we place the idea of democracy above the idea of pro-Western policy? That is, is it better to have a co-operative government in Pakistan run by a ruler like Musharraf, or is it better to have an unfriendly government supported by the people, such as the Islamic Revolutionaries in Tehran circa 1980? I would offer the former is more important that the latter - pragmatism is the first rule of core -level politics, better a defective friend than an effective enemy.

Defuse sources of Islamic hatred for the United States: The jihadist terrorists oppose the United States not for what it believes or does, but because they see America as a barrier to their creation of theocratic nation-states or caliphates.

Here it comes - the list of reasons why America is a deserved target of terror, the "she was asking for it" line of reasoning. Islamists use the United States to coalesce their own cronyism - be it bemoaning our social openness, failure to stone homosexuals in the street, allowing women to vote and pole dance - we are a convenient target. But Clarke at least has admitted the truth - we stand in the way of their assumption of power. We support moderate or pro-Western governments, we support women's rights, we support Israel...

Oh yes, Israel. That great bugaboo. To his credit, Clarke doesn't state we should alter our support for them. Though the statement that we should "revive the Israel-Palestinian peace process" demonstrates a failure to understand what US policy has been the last three years. Arafat and the Intifada were persona non grata at the White House. After 9/11, there was going to be zero tolerance for anyone who uses terrorism - yes Richard, even THOSE terrorists who don't threaten the US. And this policy is in danger of leading to pragmatic leadership and the establishment of a Palestinian state on terms NOT purchased with blood.

Improve U.S. intelligence and law enforcement organization
Eliminate terror financing
Improve U.S. military organization
Prevent nuclear terrorism

File this under command of the obvious.

The war against the jihadists will not be easy or free of casualties. But, unless we learn from our mistakes and chart a new course, the struggle will be much longer, more costly and more painful than necessary.

Good grief, this closing reads worse than a ninth graders book report. What a trite, pointless aphorism. Allow me to close, Richard - it's about time we take those who say "Death to America" at face value. Not excuse them, prevaricate, justify, or handwring. Rather, treat those words as the threat they are. This means not making apologies for terrorism, not excusing it because it's the "wrong kind", not thinking we can simply throw pithy aphorisms and cash at the problem, nor underestimating our enemy as simply the great unwashed.

The bottom line is easy to get to. Those who use terror are evil. They must be defeated, at any cost. The strategy? Both barrels, everything and anything BUT accomodation or attempts to understand the terrorist mind. Examining their thinking is like staring at the sun through binoculars - blinding and pointless. You will undermine and defeat them not by demonstrating your greater humanity, but by your willingness to sacrifice everything to defend freedom and liberty and those things you hold dear - because they are willing to sacrifice everything to deny it to you.

Posted by MEC2 at November 24, 2004 12:05 AM