A Rumsfeld Reminder Of Terrorism
The Article: A Rumsfeld-era reminder about what causes Terrorism by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.
The Text: The debate over Afghanistan ā or, more accurately, the multi-pronged effort to pressure Obama into escalating ā is looking increasingly familiar, i.e., like the ādebateā over Iraq. The New York Times is publishing articles filled with quotes from anonymous war advocates. Permanent war-justifier Michael OāHanlon is regularly featured in ānews accountsā as he all but blames Obama for increasing combat deaths due to his failure to escalate the moment the military demanded it. The New Republic is churning out pro-war screeds. Every option is on the proverbial table except one: not fighting the war. And thereās a widening gap between (a) public opinion (which sees Afghanistan as āturning into another Vietnamā and which opposes more troops, with 49% favoring a full or partial withdrawal) and (b) the virtual unanimity of establishment punditry which, as always, is cheerleading for the war. The only difference is that, with a Democratic President, there seems to be more Democratic and progressive support for this war (though there was, of course, plenty of that for Iraq, too).
The primary rationale for remaining ā and escalating ā in Afghanistan is the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything the U.S. has done since 2001: Terrorism. Apparently, the way to solve the Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops into a Muslim country and committing to at least five more years of war there. That, so the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us safer.
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administrationās policies ā specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ā were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce. Itās well worth reviewing their analysis, as it has as much resonance now as it did then (h/t sysprog).
The Task Force began by noting what are the āunderlying sources of threats to Americaās national securityā: namely, the ānegative attitudesā towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and āthe conditions that create themā.
And what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and therefore the threat of Terrorism? āAmerican direct intervention in the Muslim worldā ā through our āone sided support in favor of Israelā; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, āthe American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistanā.
Letās just repeat that: āMuslims do not āhate our freedom,ā but rather, they hate our policies.ā And nothing fuels ā meaning: helps ā the Islamic radicalsā case against the U.S. more than ongoing American occupation of Muslim countries.
For that reason, āa year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger [had] intensifiedā and the war had thus āweakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined U.S. credibility worldwideā (see. 14-15). Similarly, as of six months into his presidency, Obama had vastly improved perceptions of the U.S. among Western Europeans but ā as Der Spiegel put it ā he āhas actually made little progress in the regions where the US faces its biggest foreign policy problems,ā particularly the Muslim world (other than Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his childhood, and Egypt, where Obama spoke).
We canāt combat Terrorism by sending our military into Muslim countries. Doing that only exacerbates the problem, since it inevitably intensifies the anti-American sentiment that enables and fuels the terrorist threat in the first place. All of that is so basic. Itās been empirically proven over and over during the last decade. Itās not Noam Chomsky or Al Jazeera pointing out these basic truths, but instead, a 2004 Task Force handpicked by Donald Rumsfeldās Pentagon to review and assess the Bush administrationās anti-terrorism efforts, principally the wars they were waging in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Undoubtedly, there is some small faction of āIslamic radicalsā principally motivated by religious fervor which will likely hate the West regardless of what it does, but ā as the 2004 Pentagon-commissioned Report found ā their most potent weapons are American policies that inflame anti-American hatred in the Muslim world, beginning with ongoing wars waged by the U.S. military in Muslim countries. Thatās so self-evident it shouldnāt require a report to document it, but since it seems to, hereās a very credible report that does exactly that.
Hi
It takes a lot of
dedication and hard work to climb up the ladder in the business and corporate
world, and Richard Power has done exactly that. Power has worked with a number
of businesses throughout his career and has advanced considerably through each
position he has held. Among some of the titles that Richard Power has held are
President of Carlisle Plastics, Vice President of a large corporation, and
Executive Vice President, Senior Financial Reporter, and a Chief Financial
Officer. While Richard Powers was working in the corporate world, one company
he worked for was Tyco International.
Thanks
Richard
Power Tyco