Pessimism in the Intelligence Community
The overwhelmingly negative assessment of the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy laid out by John Negroponte and other leaders of the intelligence community in the annual worldwide threat assessment was surprisingly under-reported.
But buried in the bleak assessment, one of the starkest in recent reports, was a realistic outline of the spreading threats on multiple Islamist fronts that we are facing.
The report was notable for its candor and the end to the happy talk that has often made its way into assessments on the struggle against the jihadist threat. What is amazing is that, five years and billions of dollars after 9-11, we are falling behind in the conflict. We are not even really competing in the field of ideas, and we have done little to mitigate the broader problems.
Part of the problem is that there is still no general consensus on who the enemy is and if a war exists. Until we decide that, little else of import can happen.
The enemy is the ideology and theology that is still be funded by billions of dollars a year to spread its poison. There are two different poisons-the Salafist-Sunni version funded by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and the Shia poison funded by Iran. Both are aimed at killing us before they turn on each other.
Yet we are fighting primarily a counterinsurgency war with almost no ideological component. The Islamist front groups in this country and Europe largely operate with impunity, and there is almost no effort to help true, fundamentalist Muslims who understand the danger of the Islamists to get their message out, either here or abroad.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said that al-Qaeda “has consistently recovered from losses of senior leadership,” and that its “increasing cooperation with like-minded groups has improved its ability to facilitate, support and direct its objectives.”
Negroponte said the group’s leaders have found a haven in secure locations in Pakistan and added that Osama bin Laden’s network maintains active connections “that radiate outward from their leaders’ secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa and Europe.”
The assessment underscores how close we are to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the struggle against the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tipping point, where Afghanistan could reasonably expect to become a functioning state, appears to have past. The “open moment,” discussed in my previous blog, is no longer there.
But is a mistake to focus solely on the geographic location of the old al Qaeda leadership. What is more important is the network that exists that wants to respond to the leadership even if they have no organic link to the al Qaeda organization. It is the ideology that is the unifying and driving force.
A second front in the Islamist movements, not always compatible with the al Qaeda/Sunni front, is now open and growing. The Shia Hezbollah is emboldened and Iran stands to gain from almost any of the probably bleak scenarios in Iraq.
Somalia may be a victory or a prelude to another ongoing, bleeding conflict that drains lives and resources, where the Islamists can ultimately regroup and come back.
The realism is refreshing. The reality is scary.
commenting closed for this article
The Strategy in Somalia Ahmadinejad's Excellent Latin American Adventure
The Council on Foreign Relations has recommended a peacebuilding initiative for Somalia. The Carter Center takes months to realize an effective peacebuilding initiative so it is ludicrous to think that peace can be built within an “open moment”. Basically, a peacebuilding initiative involves getting leaders on the same page re: the needs of people. It involves reuniting families seperated from war. It involves helping people to help themselves toward health and prosperity. America becomes a player in foreign policy i.e. there is no need to concede defeat just to change course; there is no time for malaise. We need to get to work on the solution to global terrorism. We need to marginalize terrorist groups and shrink them back into the minority. There are plenty of ideas but they have been blocked by a fixed agenda by the Bush Administration. I suspect that Bush is more concerned about the interests of Saudi business partners and defence contractors and, hence, the delays between Bush’s speech and the findings of the Iraq study group. O.k., I work with green tea compounds. They kill a species related to anthrax. The Army knows that green tea compounds inhibit anthrax lethal factor by chelating metalloproteins. The works opens up line of research that could effectively eliminate a bioweapons threat. It could be the poor person’s solution to anthrax. Basically, we could take steps to reduce the threat posed by a certain class of bioweapons. Under the Bush Administration it is highly like that this information will be classified; privatized; and public service will be denied. How many other projects are treated in this way such that war solution remains the only solution?
— Philip Henika Jan 13, 01:00 #
“The reality is scary.”
Yes, indeed! But, the question is: “Why?”
From:“No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John Lewis
This is a “defeat” strategy, a radical alternative to the “generational war” strategy. Don’t reject it without looking at it. My comments appear after this quote from the article.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp
Quote—————————————————————————
“The reason for this failure is that every one of the ideas we used to evaluate our options is wrong. In every case, the opposite of today’s “conventional wisdom” is true.
A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea—undefeated by America—would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.
Poverty is not the “root cause” of wars. If it were, poor Mexicans would be attacking America, not begging for jobs at Wal-Mart.
Democracy is not a route to freedom—not for the Greeks who voted to kill Socrates, nor for the Romans who acclaimed Caesar, nor for the Germans who elected Hitler.
A culture of slavery and suicide is not equal to a culture of freedom and prosperity—not for those who value life.
The world is not a flux of contradictions, in which principles do not work. If it were, gravity would not hold, vaccinations would not work, and one would not have a right to one’s life.
Being moral does not mean sacrificing for others. It means accepting the American principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and living for one’s own sake.
History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral.”
End quote—————————————————————————
My comments:
Leaving the two power centers of Islamic totalitarianism in tact while doing essentially nothing to defeat them is an outrage. And, the catastrophic failure in Iraq will only make things worse. The “Forward Strategy of Freedom” and “Just War Theory” are disasters and are killing our soldiers for NOTHING.Bush’s job is to defend America and he isn’t doing it.
This is a fanatic murderous mass movement; the only way to deal with it is to crush it. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN FREEDOM OR SOCCER BALLS. THEY LOVE THE HEADY WORLD OF JIHAD.The jihadis have to be convinced that their longed-for Islamic states are NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO EXIST.The idea of “competing in the field of ideas” as in “generational war” is laughable; for every Muslim we convince of the incorrectness of the jihadi ideas, the jihadis will convince 1000 that they are right. And,just look at how successful have been the attempts to convince the U.S. evangelicals that evolution is right! Hmmmm?
We desperately need to replace the “generational war” strategy with a “defeat and contain” strategy. But, are we too altruistic, too compassionate to survive? Can Iran and Saudi Arabia count on us not to stop them? Are we the Pathetic Generation? Maybe so. Maybe so.
— MelM Jan 13, 03:10 #
“True, fundamentalist Muslims”? I’m sorry, but this notion that the Islamists somehow distort, misunderstand, or are otherwise at odds with traditional Islamic jurisprudence is not just wrong, it’s foolishly, dangerously wrong. The methods and goals of the Islamists are in accord with the tenets and laws of Islam as preached by the four orthodox schools of Islamic law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali).
— Bob Smith Jan 13, 03:16 #
Pessimism should be an understatement. I live in Phoenix and the open borders crowd is inviting a literally bloody disaster. Everyday I drive by an extremely target rich environment throughout the Phoenix area. Unless we do something to secure the border, instead of sending National Guardsmen there without allowing them to actually guard the nation, we are leaving ourselves wide open to incredibly lethal attacks. I don’t want to go into them here, but there are readily available targets throughout the Phoenix area that would require little technical training, no tactical skill and have little chance of detection before or capture afterward while providing maximum loss of life or property damage. A little reconnaissance could result in reeking maximum havoc with minimal effort. The fact that the border patrol estimates well over a 1000 illegal aliens from countries that sponsor terrorism snuck into this country last year alone should be reason enough to want to clamp down on the borders, last week’s incurson by armed Mexicans simply illustrates the point that all of them aren’t just coming here for work.
— Brian Tychonski Jan 13, 03:54 #
I might make some mistakes: french is my mother language. So I beg you to be indulgent on this aspect.
I am currently reading the most important US newspapers and many US and foreign authors writing about the role of the United States of America in the world since your independence.
Regarding the present situation, which started even before September 11, I believe that the war the U.S.A. has engaged in is wrong. For as you said yourself in this blog, “The enemy is the ideology and theology”.
And as history tells us since centuries, nor ideologies nor theology or religions can be fought against by soldiers.
Unless, which of course is unbelievable and totally unacceptable when talking about the first most important monotheist religion, the aim of the war is the total supression of the human beings sharing that ideology. An act which is better known under the wording of genocide.
An act which not only would be condemned by your people but also by the entire population of the world and would set the U.S.A. at the ban of the humanity.
Being myself an atheist – free-examinist more precisely – and travelling quite a lot in this world, it is quite easy for me to look at religions and ideologies. Not as a theologist but as someone loving people and trying to understand them.
I have recently make many journeys in Iran. I understand Farsi and have met many people in Iran. None of those are against the USA nor anti-Americans.
Instead many of them are wondering why instead of trying to talk with Iran and negotiate important issues such as nuclear matters or how to reach a peaceful setlement in the Middle East and in the Horn of Africa the Iranian authorities are considered by the Bush’ administration but also by most Americans as “the Devil”.
By doing so, the Americans are forgetting that most of the region between Syria and Afghanistan are populated by people who were once Persians.
Not talking to someone has never been the right way to resolve conflicts. Nor in business nor in poltics.
— Jean-Paul Ghys Jan 13, 05:48 #
In response to Bob Smith, there are Muslims who believe and practice, but are as pluralistic in their tolerance of others as I am. They are the ones who believe their relationship is individual, with Allah, and that freedom from government coercion in religious matters is paramount to being able to maintain that faith. Coerced faith and compliance is not faith at all, only fear and intimidation.
So such groups exist, quite broadly. As many Christians do with the Old Testament (and parts of the New), they believe that times have changed, interpretation within the cultural context is important and what the Prophet said has to be understood in that context, not as applicable to today’s world.
These people fight a lonely fight against the Salfists, true to their faith but unwilling to have anything to do with imposing it on others. They believe that this war of ideas can only be won by other Muslims, not by outsiders. They may be right.
— Douglas Farah Jan 13, 10:24 #
Bob –
For an interesting primer on Islam:
“Islam: Sunnis and Shiites,” updated December 11, 2006:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21745.pdf— Philip Henika Jan 13, 10:55 #
until all the current leaders of iran, syria, sudan, hezzbollah, hamas and al sadr brigades are hanging in a town square we have no hope of winning. the mindset that it takes to hang these people without a trial, and the leaders that replace them if need be is the mindset that wins wars. today’s hangings are done with cruise missiles—in the middle of the night with no warning all at the same time. absolute total war or none at all. UN speak etc is the talk of losers.
we are losing.
— patrick neid Jan 13, 14:13 #
“In response to Bob Smith, there are Muslims who believe and practice, but are as pluralistic in their tolerance of others as I am.”
The problem with them, even assuming they constitute the majority of Muslims (a contention I do not grant), is that they are a grand recruiting field for jihadists. The jihadists are successful because they have the theological initiative. They can show where in the Koran, Hadith, and Sira their actions are in full accordance with the example of Mohammad, and why pluralism is completely at odds with the example of Mohammad, thereby calling the “moderates” into alliance with them as a show of renewed faith. Any community of supposed moderates is susceptible to this infection.
Many people like to claim some sort of moral equivalence between Muslims and Christians by pointing out Christians that have committed terrorism. The problem with that is that no orthodox branch of Christianity teaches that murder is acceptable. On the other hand, all four orthodox branches of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when the Koran says “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”, not only does the Koran mean what it says but it imposes an individual obligation upon each Muslim to carry it out. That many Muslims are too lazy, unmotivated, or living their lives as de facto apostates to actually carry out the directive is irrelevant. It is always there, always ready to snare somebody who decides that “more Islam” is the solution to their life’s crisis.
— Bob Smith Jan 13, 14:34 #
Bob: stduy the passage:
9:1 [This is a declaration of] immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whome you made an agreement.
9:2 So go about in the land for four months (i.e., the four sacred months when battle was prohibited) and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, [and] then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you; so fullfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful [of their duty].
9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
The enemies are other Muslims i.e. those with whom you have agreement.
The most cited fatwa as you know is OBL’s 1998 edict to kill Westerners.
Also, recruitment into Al Qaeda is achieved via Internet propaganda and the presence of US troops in Iraq and not just the Koran
— Philip Henika Jan 13, 16:23 #
Patrick Neid are you a reincarnation of John Wayne? Bless his soul !
— Jean-Paul Ghys Jan 13, 19:28 #
In response to Mr. Smith again: I did not equate Islam and Christianity, and have often made the very same argument you have, that while there are those who preach violence there is no mainstream branch, no matter how conservative, teaches hate speach and preaches that it is our duty now to kill all those who are considered apostates. My point was that many Christian branches can look at the historical context of the scripture and realize that such context is vitally important to understanding the texts. And there are Muslims who can do this, who risk their lives against the jihadis every day.
— Douglas Farah Jan 13, 23:53 #
Until the enemy is named and its ideology of jihad
found in the koran, the hadith and sirah is studied, we may win some battles but not the war.
Our intelligence agencies are ill-informed,our armed forces barely understand who they’re fighting,our leader of these forces vacilates in naming the enemy in public pronouncements, and the general public is totally confused.
This is because the cloak of religion that barely covers the political agenda of Islam keeps our gloves from coming off. Why can’t we talk about the politics of Islam, the sharia and its primitive, misogynistic rulings? Why should Islamic politics which includes jihad be given a free ride? Sharia law cannot co-exist with the U.S. Constitution. Why can’t this be discussed?
We need to know what sharia law means in relationship to those Muslims who become U.S. citizens and what it means to our relationship with those countries who abide by it.
— Elizabeth Noble Jan 14, 12:19 #
It is an odd feature of the war with radical islam that it is easier to drop a bomb and kill the enemy in a cave somewhere in Afghanastan (hooray!) than it is to take into custody and deport a virtual clone of the same enemy who is living in London or New York.
— felix Jan 14, 13:13 #
Group:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/why_we_cant_win.html
Why We Can’t Win Militarily in Iraq
by
Larry C Johnson
”...The Bush surge is not about “Mission Creep”, it is
“Mission Leap”. Every justification for going to war
in Iraq has been exhausted and repudiated. Finally,
with the execution of Saddam Hussein, we have jumped
the shark. Yes we have deposed Saddam and his regime,
we have certified that there are no WMD’s in Iraq, and
have helped the Iraqi Shia create a fledgling Shia-led
government. Go get that “Mission Accomplished” banner
and let’s start the celebration. It is time to send
our combat forces home.
That does not mean we will leave Iraq in peace. Far
from it. A sectarian civil war is underway and will
probably worsen. But this is a war we cannot win. We
might have a chance if we were fighting one
insurgency—let’s say Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda. But we are
not. We are in the middle of a hydra headed civil
war. We have helped create a lethal version of an
Animal House food fight. There are no clear
discernible sides. There are multiple Sunni insurgent
groups and there are multiple Shia insurgent groups.
The most extreme Sunni groups believe their ultimate
mission is to kill Shia. Some Shia groups are willing
to collaborate with some Sunnis. There is only thing
these groups agree on—all see the United States as an
intruder and want it expelled…”
— Philip Henika Jan 15, 09:18 #
“The enemies are other Muslims i.e. those with whom you have agreement.” Mr Henika, I think you should read that passage again. It refers to agreements with “idolaters”: unbelievers aka non-Muslims. Its reference to being “free of liability to the idolaters” means that 9:3 abrogates all agreements with unbelievers, and 9:5 gives permission to conquer and kill them unless they repent (convert to Islam) and pay the poor-rate (zakat, the 2.5% tax on gross income owed by all Muslims).
— Bob Smith Jan 15, 18:59 #
Bob Smith:
I interpret “idolators with whom you have agreement” as being Muslims who are considered pagans in need of reform and if they are not reformed than they can be considered enemies and slayed.
BTW, I watched “24” last night and it started with a series of small attacks on the US which were blamed on Islamic militants. As you know Americans have a history of prejudice and I am certain that resultant Islamophobia would incite as much violence as the terrorists themselves.
I actually presented these comments as a question to my email Group.
One replied that small attacks from established cells may currently be favored by Al Qaeda over a large attack which exceeds 9/11 in terms of casualities.
The precedent for this is the genocide and anarchy created in Iraq by having multiple insurgencies (of which there are ~20 and not 1 as the Bush Administration claims).
The other reason is that smaller ops are more diffult re: discovery of preoperational planning.
Challenge your preconceptions, Bob, or they will challenge you.
— Philip Henika Jan 15, 20:49 #