A Few Suggestions on the Conduct of the War on Terror

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

EDIT 4/12/06 19:50: FOR THE PURPOSE OF READING ALL THE SUGGESTIONS IN ONE PLACE, I will post them originally in the body of the thread. After I post the suggestion following the current one in debate, I will edit them into this post for use as an archive. Hope this makes the format slightly clearer.

Okay, this thread is going to be somewhat different from the others here in the 'Pit. Basically, what I am going to do is post some selections out of an excellent book I recently read regarding the thread topic, and we can discuss the validity and viability of each suggestion. There are about 10 or so, so I will post them on a daily or semi-daily basis.

The book I am quoting from is Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and it is written by an anonymous author. Now, before you write it off as a result, the man who wrote this is, to quote the back cover of the book: "Anonymous is a senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and Central Asia. He is also the author of Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America." So, this guy knows what he is talking about. If you wish to, comment on what you feel of his writing this anonymously.

The mods know in advance of this thread, and will inform me if any copyright laws are in breach.

He begins the chapter I am going to quote from by describing that intelligence officers are indoctrinated when they first enter the CIA to not involve themselves in policymaking. They are simply to gather intelligence in an unbiased way, and present it clearly and concisely to their superiors. But, he states, when those intelligence officers gain experience, and become senior, it becomes their jobs to filter info they pass on to the civilian leadership. They start to put their careers ahead of the task at hand, and present only the information they think their superiors wish to hear. Hence intelligence failures like that leading up to 9/11, and later, the invasion of Iraq. I will continue with his words:

Guidelines for Consideration

After twenty-plus years of not recommending policy, I will try my hand at suggesting not policy but guidelines that America can consider using in efforts to defeat bin Laden and militant Islam. At day's end, the guidelines are one guy's ideas, and they come from one who knows that many men and women are smarter than he on the issues. Still, there is, at least, solace in knowing the guidelines offered cannot be worse for America than those our leaders have been advised to follow to date.

1.) Relax, It's Only A War, Unique Like All Others

For better and worse, America has fought wars big and little, local and global, since Mr. Winthrop governed Massachusetts Bay Colony. Since 11 September 2001, however, we collectively have behaved as if this war is our first. We have spent the past couple years making unmanageable federal government departments into gigantic unmanageable federal departments; embarrassing ourselves with threat-warning levels delineated in color on an indoor traffic signal unaccompanied by advice on defensive steps to take; and endless, almost-daily cabinet level statements that simultaneously exalt the great progress being made against al Qaeda and warn that the group is more of a threat than on Spetember 11.

It has been a dizzying, confusing, and, at times, a profoundly sophomoric performance. The conduct of war is never sedate, orderly, and silent, but it need not produce a cacophony of voices overstating small victories and downplaying a threat not yet grasped. Always tougher than their elites and never moreso than now, workaday Americans do not need constant hand-holding and daily briefings from their leaders. They need quiet, confident performance that produces measurable progress and is reported without drama and hyperbole when leaders have something to say. Frenetic activity, ceaseless chatter, and loud voices usually signal confusion, and nowhere more than in Washington. Let us get on with the war and recall the power of silence. After all, bin Laden has us scared to death, and we have heard little from him since 2001.

So, should we stop being vocal about the conduct of the war, or start being silent and methodical, like our enemies?

*Citation:

Anonymous, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Washington, DC: Brassey's Inc., 2004) p. 238-239.

2.) Accept That We Are Hated, Not Misunderstood

The United States is hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. government policies and actions. That hatred is concrete not abstract, martial not intellectual, and it will grow for the forseeable future. While important voices in the United States claim the intent of U.S. policy is misunderstood by Muslims, that Arabic satellite television channels deliberately distort the policy, and that better public diplomacy is the remedy, they are wrong. America is hated and attacked because Muslims believe they know precisely what the United States is doing in the Islamic world. They know partly because of bin Laden's words, partly because of satellite television, but mostly because of the tangible reality of U.S. policy. We are at war with an Al Qaeda-led, worldwide Islamist insurgency because of and to defend those policies, and not, as President Bush has mistakenly said, "to defend freedom and all that is good and just in the world."

To recognize the validity of this point, always keep in mind how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

*U.S. support for Israel that keeps the Palestinians in the Isrealis' thrall.
*U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula.
*U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
*U.S. support for Russia (Chechnya), India (Kashmir), and China (Xinjiang) against their Muslim militants.
*U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
*U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments (Saudis, Musharraf, etc.)

Citation: Anonymous, Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror (Washington DC: Brassey's Inc., 2004) p. 239-240.


(I urge people, if they enjoy political books, to read this. It is illuminating and easy to read. Furthermore, it is from a credible, if anonymous, source.)

[Sétanta]

I would prefer the Military strike their enemies swift and hard and get out, making no fuss about the operations, not even mentioning them to the media.

Media has ruined the Militaries ability to fight a war without being second guessed by comfortable old farts sitting in a studio in new york while terrified soldiers fight for their life.

Silence is the best strategy.

[Erik]

The "war on terror" is a joke, or at least the name is wrong, because they are not fighting terrorists, they are instead toppeling regimes and trying to prevent local populations from killing them and/or eachother.

Maybe they should stop fighting Iraq and the Taliban(*), and start fighting Al-Qaida?

(*) note: I know the media isn't exactly clear about this, but the Taliban has NOTHING to do with Al-Qaida or even terrorism, they just happened to be the ones in power in a region that used to be Al-Qaida's base of operation.

[Yorkshireman]

Maybe they should stop fighting Iraq and the Taliban(*), and start fighting Al-Qaida?

(*) note: I know the media isn't exactly clear about this, but the Taliban has NOTHING to do with Al-Qaida or even terrorism, they just happened to be the ones in power in a region that used to be Al-Qaida's base of operation.

But the Taliban allowed Al Quaida to operate camps and recruit in their "jurisdiction". Could'nt really attack one without the other in Afghanistan.

Where have you been, on holiday ?

[Erik]

But the Taliban allowed Al Quaida to operate camps and recruit in their "jurisdiction". Could'nt really attack one without the other in Afghanistan.

That's why I agreed with the attack on Afghanistan.
But when they were in Afghanistan they should have gone after Al-Qaida, instead of bogging themselves down with the long-term and almost impossible task of creating a democracy there.

Don't get me wrong: I would love to see a democracy in Afghanistan too, but that wasn't the reason why they went there.

Osama can travel to another country each week.
If the US needs 5 years of war+reconstruction for every country he moves to they wil never catch him.

Where have you been, on holiday ?

No, I just took a little break from the online community because it took up a lot of time, and I was too busy with several other projects (one being TES4:Oblivion, but that's not the main one) But now I'm back!
Anyways it's nice somebody noticed I was gone

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

That's why I agreed with the attack on Afghanistan.
But when they were in Afghanistan they should have gone after Al-Qaida, instead of bogging themselves down with the long-term and almost impossible task of creating a democracy there.

Don't get me wrong: I would love to see a democracy in Afghanistan too, but that wasn't the reason why they went there.

Actually, this is one of the authors greivances with the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, almost to the word, and it makes perfect sense.

In the book, he refers to an argument made by John Keegan just prior to the beginning of the Afghan War, which tries (using historical evidence) to prove that foreigners trying to establish new governments in Afghanistan have never ever succeeded. Keegan's advice was to use that very strategy, to use quick insertions of troops to attack and debilitate Al Qaeda, but not to settle down and try to impose democracy on a country well known for its pride, stubbornness, and xenophobia. Clearly, Keegan was not listened to, nor were the intelligence officials who advocated that course of action as well.

And so, here we sit today, with Kabul secure but precious little of the Afghan countryside under US/Northern Alliance control. And...Al Qaeda pretty much has free reign in the outer provinces.

[Erik]

Actually, this is one of the authors greivances with the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, almost to the word, and it makes perfect sense.

Ok, I admit: I wrote that book, that's why I wasn't able to post during the last few weeks ;-)

In the book, he refers to an argument made by John Keegan just prior to the beginning of the Afghan War, which tries (using historical evidence) to prove that foreigners trying to establish new governments in Afghanistan have never ever succeeded. Keegan's advice was to use that very strategy, to use quick insertions of troops to attack and debilitate Al Qaeda, but not to settle down and try to impose democracy on a country well known for its pride, stubbornness, and xenophobia. Clearly, Keegan was not listened to, nor were the intelligence officials who advocated that course of action as well.

I have heared more experts say pretty much the same.
Sadly my government doesn't listen to experts either.

And so, here we sit today, with Kabul secure but precious little of the Afghan countryside under US/Northern Alliance control. And...Al Qaeda pretty much has free reign in the outer provinces.

Yeah, and my government is sending in more troops as we speek.
Experts say they are sent onto a mission they can't win because the xenophobic Afghan population doesn't WANT them to "free" them.
But our politicians are only sensitive to the arguments of people who support the war.

[invictus]

Perhaps the best solution is to simply not go on a "war". A war on "terror" is a war on a faceless enemy, but in our case, we implanted the face of any muslim as our enemy. Thus the whole war is simply a mistake and should never have even started. -Leon

[CiaranG]

The war on terror is just a waste of time money and lives. 100 british soldiers have died in iraq yet only only 54 brits have been killed by militant islam in the time since the war on terror begun and these were lost in an attack because of our presence in iraq.

Call me crazy but blair's made a logical error some where.

[Garbarsardar]

It is another example of the fact that if you fail to take into account historical lessons in the planning stages of an operation you are bound to fail. Military measures had usually the inverse result, from what is originally intended.

The efforts of the SS to pacify the occupated areas of Soviet union led to relentless partisan warfare;people with all reasons to hate Stalin founded themselves fighting for him.

France's heavy handedness in Algeria led to the ousting of the French, no matter how many paratroopers were deployed in Algiers.

Russias ill-coordinated efoorts to subdue Chechnya resulted in a resistance movement that Russian troops find difficult to deal with.

In the end all those are phenomena mark the absence of knowledge and in depth planning. Unfortunately it is not the chickenhawkse's lifes on the line, and they will get away with a resignation, an electoral slap in the face and hours of the Daily Show's comments.

[Nihil]

It is another example of the fact that if you fail to take into account historical lessons in the planning stages of an operation you are bound to fail. Military measures had usually the inverse result, from what is originally intended.

And one careless mistake can result in vendettas that last for decades. If Bloody Sunday had never happened in Northern Ireland, would there have been all those years of conflict and horror? We will never know.

Killing civillians or committing other atrocities leads to bad blood that can endure for generations, and inspire endless future terrorist recruits. In this sense, the worst way to fight terrorism is to lash out blindly and recklessly. That's exactly what they want you to do.

Or as this gentleman put it -

Perhaps the best solution is to simply not go on a "war". A war on "terror" is a war on a faceless enemy, but in our case, we implanted the face of any muslim as our enemy. Thus the whole war is simply a mistake and should never have even started. -Leon

[Yorkshireman]

And one careless mistake can result in vendettas that last for decades. If Bloody Sunday had never happened in Northern Ireland, would there have been all those years of conflict and horror? We will never know.

Yes we do, IRA atrocities far outwieghed any act committed by the British Army before and after Bloody Sunday. Britains "war on terror" of the 70's/80's was probably prolonged by the financial support given to the IRA by American citizens through groups such as NORAID. It was quite normal for Irish terrorists to be given sanctuary in the US or be invited for coffee and cakes at the Whitehouse as well as to be able to openly fund raise.

Funny how things have changed ?

[Nihil]

Yes we do, IRA atrocities far outwieghed any act committed by the British Army before and after Bloody Sunday.

IRA atrocities before Bloody Sunday? Looks like I need to go back to my history books...

Incidentally, it is precisely my point that the consequences that followed outweighed the act. That's why I brought it up, as an example of how such an error can lead to spirals of violence and escalation that never end.

You don't believe that Bloody Sunday had that effect? Well, I won't argue with you, but most commentators would strongly disagree.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Well, one of the points repeatedly hit on in the book, and one that I agree with, is that the supporters of OBL and al Qaeda are not "the fringe of the fringe of Muslim extremism." I mean we should face facts, if the choice was given to Muslims, "Who do you relate to the most: America or Osama bin Laden?" I think we all know what the answer would be. In that sense, we have a big big problem on our hands. If Muslims are inclined to support bin Laden as opposed to America and the West, we can't really ever hope to win the war. What we need to do is address those grievances, understand why Muslims would see them as anti-Islamic, and debate upon our course of action.

I will even go down the list and say what I think, but these are just my 6 cents on the issues they hold us accountable for.

Israel: I think Israel is an ally we can and should do without. Israel does not need our help for its survival anymore, they are all grown up now as the saying goes. We pump tons of money in there, and what do we get out of it? An ally in a strategically important area? What kind of ally is it that won't even commit troops to help us against a common enemy (Iraq/Afghanistan)? Let's face it, our relationship with Israel is not a symbiotic one; they're getting all the benefits. Cracking down on Israel would at the very least make us more palatable to the Muslim people.

Arabian Peninsula: It's been said before, but if we had an alternate source of fuel, all our bases in the region would be unnecessary. That should be a priority for the West.

Iraq and Afghanistan: Tough ones. Very tough. Leaving shows us as defeatable and unwilling to accept the loss of our countrymen. Staying may be futile, and cause death for no purpose. Certainly we should abandon all hope of democratizing these places, as that is a pipe dream (especially in Afghanistan). A better strategy is beyond me. I am too ill informed to even offer a suggestion.

Support for Muslim-killers: Like Israel, we need to seriously re-evaluate the support we give to these nations. How are China, Russia, and India helping us in the War on Terror? Is it worth blindly letting these three nations brutalize their Muslim populations because we share the same cause? I don't see any Russian, Chinese, or Indian troops helping us in Iraq or Afghanistan...

Oil: It's gotta go. As long as we remain dependant on black gold, the staus quo will not change. We'll keep raping their resources. They'll keep killing us in return.

Apostate Regimes: Yet again, are they worth what we pay for them in terms of support in the war we are waging? Saudis obviously can't be gotten rid of, for economic reasons...Musharraf the same, but for military reasons. Personally, I say we'd be better off without them, but I can't see the whole picture.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Well, the simple fact is that it is easier intellectually to just assume that they hate us for who we are. We assume that they hate freedom because it is too hard, or very hard to redress the real issues at hand. But just because we WISH that that were the case, doesn't actually make it the case...

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Okay, time for Suggestion #3:

3.) Stop Celebrating Death and Defeat

Since the 11 September attacks, many Americans have engaged in an almost non-stop celebration of the massive defeat suffered that day. Purportedly sorrowful commemorations of the dead, these endless, well-planned and -scripted effusions of grief, international contests for memorial designs, and, most of all, rivers of stilted, "never-forget" oratory serve no purpose except to recall our utter defeat and allow us to wallow in dread of the pain to come. In my own organization in 2003, we celebrated "Family Day" by treating visitors to this sort of celebration of defeat. In the main corridor stood a shrine erected to the debacle of 11 September. Beautifully matted photos of the twin towers burning and collapsing, framed artist renderings of architects' plans for memorials to the dead, photos of pseudo-Diana flower piles placed in front of U.S. embassies abroad, and -the macabre centerpiece- a glass display case holding metallic and concrete shards from the World Trade Center. All these are, to use an old fashioned phrase, unmanly. Americans are made of sterner stuff - or, at least, better be, for, as Robert D. Kaplan wrote about our current foes in the Atlantic Monthly, "In a world of tribes and thugs manliness goes a long way."

Generations of our forefathers marked America's defeats and casualties in quiet, unadorned, once-a-year observances; celebrations were kept for victories marked by the enemy's annihilation and war's end. Would that we relearn to mourn with quiet dignity and to celebrate only when the cause of mourning is eradicated. Our response to attacks should be to bury our dead while confirming our resolve to destroy their killers by reciting graveside verses from the 144th Psalm: "Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teaches my hands to war my fingers to fight...Bow they Heavens, O Lord, and come down: touch the mountains and they shall smoke. Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows and destroy them..."

Citation: Anonymous, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Washington, DC: Brassey's Inc., 2004) p. 239-240.

These are my own personal thoughts on the matter:

I just think this country has a sick obsession with celebrating 9/11. Not remembering it, but celebrating it.

In fact, case in point. I live in Gettysburg, PA, and on the first anniversary of 9/11, in 2002, the town put on a Remembrance Ceremony in the town square. Well, it was sick. I couldn't have imagined anything more offensive to the dead of 9/11 or the families. It started off somber, but then it turned into a 'YAY AMERICA' fest. To top it all off, a local member of the military gave a speech, and in it he gave all of two minutes of speech dedicated to the defeat of 9/11. Most of his speech was warmongering about how we should go into Iraq to avenge the deaths of those killed on 9/11. It was absolutely pathetic, and it offended me greatly, to use their deaths for the purpose of warmongering.

This movie follows the same trend it would seem. Not in the warmongering sense, but in the sense that we are grasping desperately for something to celebrate about that day and about this war. Because let's face it, there's not much to celebrate so far...So, we'll turn to a speculated account of what may or may not have happened on the only unsuccessful hijacked plane of 9/11, and people will continue to celebrate a day that we were beaten on our own soil, hands down.

Located in the United 93 thread.

So what say you? Do Americans celebrate 9/11 in an unhealthy manner? Would we do better to follow this man's advice?